OCR Text |
Show Are Solomon's Songs only Love Lyrics After All? t tlnuad antll there took .hap two distinct and separata trends of thoufht In relation to tha Song. Br aoma arholara la was declared thai the lyrlce ware allegorical. That they represented God'a love tor Hla people. That, Interpreted allegorlcally. tha beautiful Shu-lamlte Shu-lamlte waa. In troth, the aymbol o( Israel, and tha maidens of Jerusalem the "people of Israel." in thla Interpretation Solomon, the King, became but a aymbol of God Himselfhence, Him-selfhence, the Bona; of Songs did not pro- I "King Sale- ) aaoa aad tha ( Shalaauta, by Gilbert ) Jaaasa. Bill I ia Mr. Jaases'a I aaintimg, I The Dauga-tare Dauga-tare af Jerasalaas,' j aad ia tha I center, "The 1 Beautiful j Captive," by ! the same I artist. (-.... ) j I .......) - - H a-, " , epllomliatlon of the wisdom of tha (rest King in a wholly Bctltloua dramatic, epl-aode epl-aode which even tha moat uncultured and untrained could understand. By drawing tha picture for their audi- tore of tha real mother consenting to renounce re-nounce her child rather than have It suffer, suf-fer, while the Impostor waa willing that it ahould thua be alaln, the ancient teachera of wisdom left a lasting impression of the magnitude of real mother lore, of Ita gentleness, gen-tleness, Ita tenacities and Ita readlneaa to Buffer In giving comfort to the little onea it embraced. Even to-day tha lesson In the relation of Solomon's decision in thla altuatlon, aa described In the Bible, does not impress ua so much as an Instance of supernatural wisdom aa a striking drama with the gi eat uiuiat preachment " ff sylii-did sylii-did la tha mother who will suffer her child fesa to tell, these acholare concluded, con-cluded, of the earthly lor of eren a king for a r"- ,1,v ijbUtt,f , father for all V , --"f Are Solomon's Songs only :f s ; ; t Love Lyrics AfterAll? . fkV k " - ' -''" Mir- . n " k -i : f " - ' ' ' so"ad ha Unuad intil there took shape two distinct epllomliatlon of the wisdom of the great V-'" - . v, 1 - r'jsVS' - T , "auulita, Bd eeparate trenda of thought In relation King in a wholly Bctltloua dramatic, epl- f o' - ' ' s f V ' " I h,r (--"--,r t0 the Song. node which even tha moat uncultured and "ui.si'i V. Vl"l ' ' t ii'hUi By aoma arholara la waa decUred that "trained could Ederstand. rT,- i ' ' in V v M "!". these lyrics were allegorical. That they By drawing the picture for their audi-. . VpflSZfi?? - ' it .J V "Tk D"t- represented God'a lore for Hla people. That, tore of the real mother consenting to re- r ' ' " J.uL." interpreted allegorically. the beautiful Shu- nounca her child rather than have It auf- ' Ti',V J I - " ! is lamlte waa. In truth, the aymbol of Iaraal. nlla the Impostor waa willing that It ' 1?V' ,J . OW 1"J "J' and the maldena of Jerusalem the "people ahould thua be alaln, the ancient teachera I W ' Ll-.- k ' "FT- I C..C- r -" Interpretation Solomon. ' '"- a U.tlng Impression of the V W' f I if'. ' '- ' l I I' 4 ... . . . . . . . . magnitude of real mother love, of Ita gen- J I ' .'. f 1 r H . 7 j 1 l?r ' ' bUt 'T ' " 004 It. tenacitle. and It. mdlaaa. to ' eelf hence, the Bong of Songa did not pro- iuffer in giving comfort to the little onea J ' 'jTi. I 1 v.. fesa to tell, these arholara con- it embraced. Kven to-day the lesson in Xlft'-Vi C is&'fiVil- - ym eluded, of the earthly love relation of Solomon'a decision In thla ..7? iv. i AJI-t . - .' . , .... . k,. ror altuatlon, a. described In the Bible, doe , f ' .i'-? ; -0. . -x, ; ,,- v. y..'-., aa-----V --, alave glrl.but of the ,np.rnlul, wisdom as a atriklng drama J yiiZiii..' . ---c, ..Hw : r--- afcaaasav si. . '- . laee of .. tha with the-great nun at piTai'liwient--"apleti- I "iViVk-'v VviV9.,!,Mi,"' .,T-ri-Xrr"XiV''? I ' Father for all did la the mother who will euffer her child . Hgi:;.. tBii i j" . ::-L'rT3,v been the inspiration of 1 ' 'jJ..J...j ""v ' ' 1 ,;',''' - I 1 X I many famous artist. VQAJ-.) "r . ' " ' AV (H ' ! ' V.-r-' U The two repreaented if"' ' A' 'V ' e-sV v " f (fT ITl ' ' on thi. pK. Gilbert f.' V ?Vi Xv'ArHX N "'Mj.l.I.l ; J.me. and Claggett ; f1 I M ; - "U P-Ji U V -'. , . - '- ' ,7 W41on. hawe widely lJ, I. V - - X. V. differing conceptions of t-Wr JlT jL. - - ' ' "--tr.) . - . -." V V I ' theShulamite. The -. fvZjW .WA'" ' ' ' ! ' ."j work, of both recently ! ' ' " ' t j" j 'j won much attention. ( 7:: (gV f 1 T TV -jT " ' ' '1 JfST who was the beautiful Shu- W'.'a.ai. - TT . ?" W", . " 'TTt I Jt I'W-- "v' C"r"'1 ..miter And who were the , TT , ZnTIl (If . X, ; jO"' ' "maiden, of JeruMlcmr i - .T 1 -" '.in-. i h -t . ' ' W 7 ' - f - I - V' 1 involuntarily the hn.wer come. . . . 1 ' V Tr0T7 A C -Vv k- ' 1 V X to the llps-the beautiful Shulamlt "' ' i ' 1 ' "" "t f . CI V-V - fcS can be none other than the beloved 4 Xt h' ' " ' X "V ' f '7 0' . J captive of Solymon. stolen for the 'Afr," ' , 71. " V) . ' ,V King from hgr rustic awaetheart; E '' , - -VO O H fcOtSi K ' X ' ' "; I the maidens of Jerusalem were, of -Tt' ; " ' VQ ? Vv' A 2 ' ' ' - - -'jJLj cour. the spectator, at the wooing " , ,,,, ..... ' ,.Ci V X' -. )CW V-,.- : A '. . , ..Zi- of the King and his fair prisoner. J-.. -Hr-Mi'.. lytV" ' " .' . . i . , . l'' 1 For la not the Shulamlt. the heroin, of dMtn thu Dr jMtrow trel, , ,ch m H Wttm iuch K ' W'W V, , , ' ' ' V ; U"'"X the Song of Song,, "Which I. Solomon..- ,Urtl,f wly of ,ne De.utlful 8onf of ,nterpr,ution accepted. " ' A: V N X ( - and la It not sung In this interesting book Botlglu , ,UDBUnc., h, decUre. that thea. the acholar. contend- f Xf ' . r .' X .C. i 'X1 '' V'" ' of the Bible that it waa to the maiden, of , U( but twenty. ed, there could no longer ' fc U VLei the city that the Shulamlte addreased her- countryside ballade, or folk wngs. be any concern over the . - ' aVlN.' - ' self In lyrical comment upon the progres. wri,,en down from the lipa of a generation inclusion of these ro- f.T ' " ' ' . " ' . XP" ' ' of the King's court of her? living long after Solomon', time and In- mantle effusion. In the V ' ' ' ...'.' But. after all, are these explanation, cor- herited by them, aa folk aong. pas. from solemn Scriptures. ' ' . . , rect? Was there, truly, a Shulamlte at all- one generation to another. "For," they asked "in f ' ' ,,. ..' V , , , - . n one. beautiful and captivating maiden, who They are songs bssed upon the theme of what more Impressive The Song of Songa ha. been the in.piration of many famou arti.ta. The two represented on this page, Cilbert James and Claggett Wilson, hare widely differing conceptions of the Shulamite. The works of both recently won much attention. JUST who was the beautiful Shulamlte? Shu-lamlte? And who were the "maidens of Jerusalem?" Involuntarily the knswer come. 1 to the lips the beautiful Shulamlte ran be none other than the beloved captive of Solomon, stolen for the King from her rustic awaetheart; the maiden, of Jerusalem were, of course, the spectators at the wooing of the King snd his fair prisoner. TV Lip. Ars Searlat" (abeee), reasarkable ceaeeptioa j. of the i ShaUnlta, bF CUggott Wilt... Below, t I '!. I aaother af WlUea'i I Seag af V aaiatiags, "Tk. .. af Skaraa." -) TlyLlp. .. . j Ar. Searl.l" . (..).. f raasarkable ( a-vjl eaaeeptiaa i . , of tha f . ' H Sh.Ua.1, f , j kF CUggail ' m J Wilsea. ' ' H.T Balaw. at i i J . 1 aaetkar ml ' Saag af V V aWawd - ' i ) ; al.ti. Ui . "Tk. Rasa , , - af Skaraa." aess left for an addition wife or a mora numeroua harem. Bo was It not, "S , these students ask, a subtle kv..' V . smnhssla nnon tha Dower His people. With such Interpretation accepted, these scholars contend- j ed. there could no longer I be any concern over the j Inclusion of these ro- ' mantle effusions In the solemn Scriptures. ' "For," they asked "In j what more Impressive aess left for an addition wife or a mora numeroua harem. Bo was It not, these students ask, a subtle smnhssta nnon tha Dower death, that Dr. Jastrow treats In such a startling way of the beautiful Song of Songs. In substance, he declares that theae poetical effusions are. In fact, but twenty-three twenty-three countryside ballads, or folk songs, written down from the lips of a generation living long after Solomon's time and Inherited In-herited by them, ss folk songs pass from one generation to another. They are songs bssed upon the theme of romantic love, Dr. Jastrow declares, of the most earthy character, and scarcely worthy of inclusion in the Scriptures. Tha Shulamlte, he says, was only a creation of the fancy of young men whose thoughts in the springs of those days turned to Shulum, the home of beautiful maidens, just as the thoughts of young men of today to-day turn in the spring to the addresses and telephone numbers of their especially admired ad-mired maiden acquaintances. Until a few years ago there waa never any question of the truth of the simple heading which waa put over this book of the Old Testament In the King James version "Which I. Solomon'.." No doubt "there always was some speculation upon the reason for the Inclusion of such a purely romantic chapter In such a solemn work, hut no scholar questioned the authorship au-thorship of Solomon himself. This King was one of the wisest of his time, and one of the most versatile of tliat there Is little doubt. It was not thought Impossible that he also added poesy to hia talents, and by virtue of his seven hundred-odd love affairs af-fairs was Inspired to set down the beautiful beauti-ful thoughts and metaphora which makeup the "Song of Solomon." Within the last few years, however, there has grown some Inclination to seek other authorship, or. falling that quest, to give the Song some other meaning than that of a mere paean to romantic love. Theologians were generally distressed at any effort to find aught new or contradictory contradic-tory In the Bible, but the discussion con- and understandable way could the affection of a great and kind Father for Hla people be explained than In the terms of youth's devotion to his sweetheart man's affection affec-tion for her whom be would make hi mate? bearing out thla explanation of the love lyrics Is the undoubted fondness of all early peoples with Oriental inheritance for the allegorical. Tha formative mind, or the mind that Is not trained to close concentrations, con-centrations, la essentially dramatic In Russia to-day there is being made aa effort to educate large raassea of people hy the use of the cinema. It has been found that the Kusslan peasant, not long freed from serfdom and wholly untrained to the collection and assortment of facta by mental processes, can best be taught by the dramatlintion before him or the lessons when otherwise would be taught verbally and with the printed pane. Thla ia a concession con-cession to the circumstance that the untrained un-trained nind understands only by making mental pictures ef what ia given It to consider. con-sider. Tnere were no cinema films in the dayt of Moses, and Solomon and the later rabbis who. It Is generally believed, assorted the Bible. They obtained the same result, however, by the nse of the allegorical. It Is !ven said by some holars to-day that the famous episode of the contention of two women before Solomon for the possession posses-sion of the disputed baby and Solomon's edict that the baby's body should be halved and each woman be given a portion, por-tion, waa In reality but an allegory aa ato be taken from her If It be better for the child Itself." There has been some willingness also to accept the other explanation that the Song of SOnga, which, read only for It. literary liter-ary merit might be subjected to the same criticisms as are expended upon some of Byron's and Shelley's effusions, was inserted insert-ed In the Scriptures only as an allegory giving divine sanction to the most exaggerated exag-gerated love of the youth for a maiden an excuse for even the moat fanciful devotions, devo-tions, an excuse even for those young men who were foolish In their adulations at the feet of their beloved. Such divine sanction and such excuse might well have been considered needtul hy the early propheta who, conscious that tliey were compiling a book which wculd bevome the moral and practical guide for all generations to come, might have wished to insure a permanent encouragement to the human emotions, the respect and appreciation ap-preciation for tli. gentleness of woman upon which the happiness and expansion of future societies would depend. There are those who have credited the early philosophers with even more subtlety than this. Some authorities have suggested suggest-ed that perhaps the wise men of the first century of the Christian era saw In the Song of Songs an eloquent argument for monogamy and that such argumenta were needed In those days there la little doubt. The KUitor who could enter upon such raptures rap-tures at the contemplation of the charms of one young woman, even though she be a Shulamlte, surely could hat little fond- of a single woman to charm so deeply that all others wera needless, tha rabbi. Intended In-tended when tbey If It waa the rabbi, who chose lbs books of tbs Bible gave their approval to the love song? Certainly, sine the origin and value of Solomon's Song became a matter of argument, argu-ment, many other theories hart been advanced. ad-vanced. There Is one school which believes thst aoma portion of Solomon's Bong-known Bong-known to ths early patriarchs, waa lost In transmission to later generations; that the Song aa known to-day Is Incomplete: that It was a full legend of Solomon and Included tha'dramatle sequence of some greet epoch, of aoma great moral upheaval in which the Shulamite played a prominent part and which If known to-day would hare far different effect upon the Imagination Imagina-tion than do the eight books ss translated under King Jamea. All aurh theories are wrong, however, according to Dr. Jastrow. Solomon, he says, had never beard the Bong of Songs which Is credited to him. Among his seven hundred wives there might well have been a hundred Shulamltes. but none about whom he composed s poem. The very language of the Song waa that of generations after this good but exces sively married King. ' In them la loans traces of various tongues the Arable, the Egyptian, tbs Moabltlc and, even, a trace of tha Illttlte. It was only a translator. Dr. Jastrow contends, who rendered tbem Into the Palestinian Hebrew. This translator, trans-lator, aays Dr. Jastrow, gathered ths folk songs of half a score of lands folk, songs which even to-day have their versions In tha peasants' songs of Hungary, Russia and Normandy. It always has been believed the Song of Solomon was a single effusion, a connected narrative, with the maldena of Jerusalem aa Its audience. The reference to Bolomoa Is plain in the King James translation of the Bible so plain In tact that Dr. Jaa- -trow's decision that Solomon bad nothing to do with It; that It Is not even associated ' wltb him. but with the peoples and rulers of scattered lands Is doubly startling. Dr. Jastrow points out that In nearly all Oriental countriea formerly, and In maer ' now, all bridegrooms are "kings" and all brldea are "queens." Marriage la not only ' a solemn but a gay occasion in the Orient. Days are set apart during which continuous continu-ous festivities reign. During this period tha friends anI neirhtvu-a nt th h.us For Is not the Shulamite the heroine of the Song of Songs, "Which is Solomon's," and Is It not sung In this interesting book of the Bible that it waa to the maidens of the city that the Shulamlte addressed herself her-self In lyrical comment upon the progress of the King's court of her? But, after all, are theae explanations correct? cor-rect? Was there, truly, a Shulamlte at alt- one, beautiful and captivating maiden, who enchanted Solomon himself and caused him to list ber charms and his own raptures over them in the Biblical book that bears his name? It seems startling to raise this doubt. Yet the question has been raised and so authoritatively that there suddenly has been aroused a serious discussion not only of the hidden meaning of the Song of Songs, but ef Its authorship and the propriety pro-priety of its Inclusion In the Ulble, and also of the manner In which It became a part of the Old Testament.' Although there have been many theories as to the history of the exotic love song which seems so out of place in a holy book. It generally has been accepted tliat the learned and long bearded rabbis who gathered gath-ered at Jamnla, thirty miles west of' Jerusalem. In the year 90 A. D-. and aol-emnly aol-emnly voted upon the various chapters to he Included hi the Bible, then in the course of being compiled, were well advised In choosing the love songs and correct in Identifying them as being the literary endeavor en-deavor of the great and wise King of Jerusalem. J Popular Opinion on The Side of Solomon Nearly every one baa been content to believe. . therefore, tbat Solomon either wrote the love aonga or had . them compiled, com-piled, and that hia beautiful slave girl, the Shulamlte, was a very real person with a very real fdmlrer for whom she longed, despite the warmth of the royal love. Mays have been staged and many books have been written with thi. entrancing maiden as their heroine. Her love has been made the basis for drama, tragedy and romance since the beginnings of modern literature. Sermons have been preacheu npon her constancy and her geutleness. Now we are told she did not exist, and tbat Solomon waa not an author oTa bard. It is none less than the distinguished Professor Morris Jastrow, Jr.. until hla recent re-cent death head of the department of ae raft ra-ft In at the University of Pennsylvania and a scholar of International Influence, who tells ua that the Song of Songs waa not a lyric narrative at all, but Jmt a collection of "popular" verses of the day which the learned ralibis allowed to get into the Bible while tber most strangely bad their minds upon something else than what they wer doing. Betides discrediting a tradition which hss been especially pleasing, in our contemplation con-templation of that dramatic past when Jerusalem was mighty and Solomon the greatest of kings. Dr. Jastrow haa aroused widespread argument as to the possibility of there some day being a new and revised re-vised translation, or compilation, of other booka of the Bible. -It is In his last book, published Ince his i coupla shower them with sttentloaa thai are otherwise reserved for royalty, . "King" Generic Name Used for "Bridegrooir.t" The mention of the "king" In tbs Song of Songs wa. merely appropriated by the Hebrew acholar. of th. first century. Dr. Jastrow says, as an IdentlUcalion of the greatest of tbelr royal kings, Solomon himself, when. Instead, the original texts referred only to all bridegrooms la the generic appellation "king." What Is there to be done about it? Anything Any-thing at all? This is the Interesting question ques-tion thai involuntarily arises. Dr. Jastrow ' was an eminent suthority. His cooclu aions have greater weight tbaa that accorded ac-corded the theories af many other students of the making of the Bible. Ha does not comment at length or come to any opinion aa to the propriety of the Song of Songs, lie tella ua only that It waa not Solomon t and that It waa not a bit of romantic historyJust his-toryJust a collection of love lyric brought Into Palestine from many lands ' and snng by swains at festival lima tor -lie amusement of many maldena. - |