1780. This beautiful commentary was followed by an elaborate work of Kleuker on this Song.[108] He too, with an overwhelming force of argument, opposes the allegorical interpretation, and maintains that the book consists of detached songs.
1781. Ann Francis, a lady of much poetical taste, who, assisted by the learned Parkhurst, published a poetical version of the Song,[109] was the first who adopted and defended the theory of Harmer, that this book speaks of two wives, one a Jewish lady, who had been married to Solomon long before, and the daughter of Pharaoh, whom the king had recently espoused.
1786. Hodgson, however, was not influenced by the theory of Harmer, but, with Bossuet, Lowth, Percy, &c., regarded this poem as “an epithalamium written by Solomon, on his marriage, as some have supposed, with the daughter of Pharaoh.”[110]
1789. The theory maintained by Abrabanel and Leon Hebraeus,[111] seems at this time to have found its way into the Christian Church. An unknown author, mentioned by Magnus,[112] defended the view that the bride of the Song represents wisdom, with whom Solomon converses.
1790. It is indeed cheering to meet again with some glimpses of light amidst the dense darkness which gathered around this book. Ammon not only vindicated its unity against some of his contemporaries, but showed that it celebrates the victory of true and chaste love in humble life over the allurements of courtly grandeur.[113] [[92]]
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.[114]
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.”[115] 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,[116] 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 [[93]]virtuous country-maiden, who was attached to a shepherd, was brought into Solomon’s harem, and there tempted by the king with flatteries and promises to transfer her affections; but she, armed by the power of virtue, resisted all his allurements, and remained faithful to her shepherd, to whom she was afterwards re-united.[117]
Though it cannot be said that either Clarke or Boothroyd in any way elucidated the design of this book, yet they have done great service by their rejection of the allegorical interpretation.