leads to marriage, is the scope of the Song, has been urged against the Catholic view, but vainly in the face of the recurrent phrase "the Virgin of Israel" in the Old Testament, and the clear statement of the New that the marriage has not yet come, and only the betrothal has taken place. The next argument of weight is that which serves to repel the à priori objections taken to the form and diction of the poem as a vehicle for spiritual ideas. If it could be shown that the Song, if mystically explained, is an isolated phenofrom paral- menon, having no parallel in any literature, very much and Persian would be done towards discrediting the ancient view. literature; But such is not the case. The Arab nation, which in lels in Arabic Songs at blood and language is most nearly allied to the Hebrews, has preserved to the present day the custom of chanting in public worship songs in which the religious meaning is veiled under the ordinary terms of earthly love. The service at which these are recited is called a Zikr, the poems themselves (usually in honour of Mohammed) muweshshah. On this, Mr. Lane, in his Modern Egyptians, chap. xxiv. writes as follows: "He pointed out the following poem as one of those most common at Zikrs, and as one which was sung at the Zikr which I have begun to describe. I translate it verse for verse, and imitate the measure and system of rhyme of the original, with this difference only, that the first, third, and fifth lines of each stanza rhyme with each other in the original, but not in my translation. With love my heart is troubled; And mine eye-lid hind'reth sleep : While with streaming tears I weep. Will my love ever meet mine eye? Alas! did not estrangement Draw my tears, I would not sigh. By dreary nights I'm wasted: Absence makes my hopes expire: Whose is like my condition? Draw my tears, I would not sigh. O turtle-dove! acquaint me Wherefore thus dost thou lament? Of thy wings deprived, and pent? O First and sole Eternal! Draw my tears, I would not sigh. I must translate a few more lines, to show more strongly the similarity of these songs to that of Solomon; and lest it should be thought that I have varied the expressions, I shall not attempt to render them into verse. In the same collection of poems sung at Zikrs is one which begins with these lines: O gazelle from among the gazelles of El-Yemen ! I am thy slave without cost: O thou small of age and fresh of skin! O thou who art scarce past the time of drinking milk! In the first of these verses we have a comparison exactly agreeing with that in the concluding verse of Solomon's Song; for the word which, in our Bible, is translated 'a roe,' is used in Arabic as synonymous with 'ghazál' (or a gazelle,) and the mountains of El-Yemen are the mountains of spices.' This poem ends with the following lines: my slumber : The phantom of thy form visited me in Attempted reply, from sacred names; The beloved of my heart visited me in the darkness of night; I said, 'O thou my petition, and all my desire! Hast thou come at midnight, and not feared the watchmen ?' Had taken from me my soul and my breath.' Compare the above with the second and five following verses of the fifth chapter of Solomon's Song. Finding that songs of this description are extremely numerous, and almost the only poems sung at Zikrs; that they are composed for this purpose, and intended only to have a spiritual sense (though certainly not understood in such a sense by the generality of the vulgar;) I cannot entertain any doubt as to the design of Solomon's Song. The specimens which I have just given of the religious love-songs of the Moslems have not been selected in preference to others as most agreeing with that of Solomon, but as being in frequent use." To this may be added the statement of Major Scott Waring as to a kindred custom in Persia, "The Persians insist that we shall give them the merit of understanding their own language, that all the odes of their celebrated poets are mystical, and breathe a fervent spirit of adoration to the Supreme Being. They maintain that the Soofees profess eager desire with no carnal affection, and circulate the cup, but no material goblet, since all things are spiritual in their sect; all is mystery within mystery." And finally, European literature contributes its quota of parallel in the Vita Nuova of Dante. A twofold reply, of but little cogency, has been absence of attempted to this proof that there is no inherent unlikelihood in the mystical interpretation. It is alleged, firstly, that the Song of Solomon contains no hint, no key, no direct reference to holy names and ideas, such as is certainly found in the first quotation from Arabic sources given above, and such as may possibly be found in the full text of the remainder, and that we are therefore not at liberty to interpret it otherwise than literally. This loses sight of a very important and familiar canon of composition, that an grounds. allegory, in order to be perfect, ought not to con- untenable tain its own key. So far as it does, or as any ob- on abstract trusive clue is given, it is defective in structure. The beast-fables of Bidpai, Esop, and Krilof, supply familiar examples. Any distinct intimation of the purport in the body of the fable is simply destructive, and even an application tagged on is more than superfluous, ranking with the too audible stage-explanations in the tragedy of Pyramus and Thisbe. This charge against the Song of Solomon, then, merely proves its high literary excellence, and the skill with which the author avoided the defect into which the Arab poet has fallen. The only reason which would excuse deviation from this rule would be the imperative need of warning persons against being led astray by the literal sense; but as a fact, in the whole literary history of the Canticles for nearly nineteen hundred years, there is scarcely an example on record of the literal sense having held its ground anywhere for a moment. Surely, if the mystical exposition be so unnatural and far-fetched as some declare, this would not and could not be so, as we may learn from the total failure of the Alexandrine critics to establish their allegorical interpretation of the Iliad. Another objection, that urged by an American Objection literalist, Professor Noyes, is more philosophical in milarity of tone, but not more convincing. It is that the funda- race and religion, and mental differences between the pantheistic system of the from disSufis and the religion of the Jews, and the great in- tance of terval of time which lies between Solomon and Hafiz, (even if it be conceded that the odes of the latter are religious poems at all) make it absolutely impossible to institute any parallel between them. This argument loses sight of the original question, which is not whether there is any close likeness between Sufism and Judaism, which might crop up in literary forms, but whether there is the least antecedent improbability in the human mind selecting amatory language to express devotional thoughts. The allegation that it is most unlikely to do so is disposed of by the parallels adduced, and the cogency of the argument would be unaffected by the broadest divergency of race and creed, from dissi time; inadequate as disproof. Anthropomorphic lan guage of the Song. Main diffi literalist view. as all students of comparative mythology know full This portion of the controversy leads up directly to culty of the what is, after all, the main difficulty in the way of literalists, a difficulty which they have not hitherto even plausibly seemed to overcome. It is that of accounting for the presence of the Song, assuming it to be a mere love-poem, in the Canon of Scripture at all, whether as originally admitted by the Jews or subsequently adopted by the Christians. It would stand apart from all the rest of Scripture as alone without |