-
25. “Drink Deep of Love!”: Reading Song of Songs
- Jewish Publication Society
- Chapter
- Additional Information
25 “Drink Deep of Love!” Reading Song of Songs Primary Reading: Song of Songs. The Song of Songs (sometimes called “the Song” for short) is the most exquisite book of the Bible.1 In trying to guide readers, I do not want to paraphrase it—it is simply too beautiful and too multilayered. No paraphrase can do it justice. The Song of Songs deserves to be read and reread; it cannot be confined to a single meaning.2 What I can best offer are some signposts that will help readers discover the richness of the text. Solomon and the Song In English, in addition to “Song of Songs,” this composition is often called the “Song of Solomon,” based on the first verse: “The Song of Songs, by Solomon.” In previous chapters, I discussed similar attributions, which rarely seem to be historically accurate. (This includes the attribution of much of Psalms to David, and of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes to Solomon.) Here, too, comparison with dated Hebrew inscriptions has shown scholars that many phrases and forms in the Song do not match the language of King Solomon’s time. In places, the text is clearly postexilic; for example, 4:13 uses pardes (sd<@r$p<-), a Persian word meaning “orchard.” (Hebrew writers would not have borrowed from the Persian language until after the exile to Babylon; see above, chapter 4.) In short, someone wrote it down well after Solomon. Indeed, if Solomon really wrote the book, why would he refer to himself in the third person, as in “King Solomon made him a palanquin . . .” (3:9)? Critical scholars broadly agree that the first verse is not integral to the book. Everywhere else in the book (thirty-two times), the relative pronoun—translated as “that,” “which,” or “who”—is expressed using the particle prefix she- (DE). 257 Only in this first verse do we find the longer form asher (rDEa7; the JPS translation renders it as “by”—or in its footnote, “concerning”). A single author would not have used both forms. This anomaly has prompted scholars to conclude that a later editor added 1:1. That editor most likely wanted us to think of this book as written by Solomon. Given the description in 1 Kings 11:3 of Solomon’s “seven hundred royal wives and three hundred concubines,” Solomon would naturally have been a candidate for the love-song business. The Song’s own repeated mention of a king may have also motivated the attribution.3 While readers may still use the royal Solomonic court as an imagined setting for the book, the historical-critical method suggests that we also try to imagine reading the Song as independent of the initial attribution. A Collection Although the Song looks like a unified composition, it is not. It conveys a sense of unity by being a collection of poems of similar genres. A number of indications argue against its being a composition by a single author. First, the Song contains a refrain, yet the refrain does not appear in exactly the same Hebrew words, as we would expect from a book written by one author: (2:7) I adjure you, O maidens of Jerusalem, / By gazelles or by hinds of the field: / Im [Ma1, “Do not”] wake or rouse / Love until it please! (3:5) I adjure you, O maidens of Jerusalem, / By gazelles or by hinds of the field: / Im [Ma1, “Do not”] wake or rouse / Love until it please! (8:4) I adjure you, O maidens of Jerusalem: / Mah [hm-, “Do not”] wake or rouse / Love until it please! A second sign of the book’s multiple authorship is that it uses variant forms of the same words—variants that linguists understand to arise from different Hebrew dialects. For example, the style of the direct object suffix differs between chapters 3 and 5: bikashtiv (vyt<1D4q<-b<1) versus bikashtihu (Vhyt<1D4q<-b<1); both words mean “I sought him.” Perhaps the strongest proof of more than one author is the near repetition of one particular passage, an elaborate description of features of the lover’s body, which is called a was!f. (Such descriptions have a long-standing place in Arabic 258 How to Read the Bible [18.205.114.205] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 12:35 GMT) poetry, which is why scholars refer to them by this Arabic term, pronounced “watzf.”4). The Song repeats one of its was!fs, but does so with variations: (4:1) Ah, you are fair, my darling, Ah, you are fair. Your eyes are like doves Behind your veil. Your hair is like a flock of goats Streaming down Mount Gilead. (2) Your teeth are like a flock of ewes Climbing up from the washing pool; All of them bear twins, And not one loses her young. (3) Your lips are like a crimson thread, Your mouth is lovely. Your brow behind your veil Gleams like a pomegranate split open. (4) Your neck is like the Tower of David, Built to hold weapons, Hung with a thousand shields — All the quivers of warriors. (5) Your breasts are like two fawns, Twins of a gazelle, Browsing among the lilies. (6) When the day blows gently And the shadows flee, I will betake me to the mount of myrrh, To the hill of frankincense. (7) Every part of you is fair, my darling, There is no blemish in you. Why would a single author repeat the same description? If he5 were to repeat it, why do so with these particular variations? The best answer to these questions is that more than one version of these poetic passages circulated in ancient Israel; someone then collated them together in a larger work that eventually became the Song of Songs as we have it. Saying that this book is a collection leaves many questions open. What type “Drink Deep of Love!” 259 (6:4) You are beautiful, my darling, as Tirzah, Comely as Jerusalem, Awesome as bannered hosts. (5) Turn your eyes away from me, For they overwhelm me! Your hair is like a flock of goats Streaming down from Gilead. (6) Your teeth are like a flock of ewes Climbing up from the washing pool; All of them bear twins, And not one loses her young. (7) Your brow behind your veil Gleams like a pomegranate split open. (8) There are sixty queens, And eighty concubines, And damsels without number. (9) Only one is my dove, My perfect one, The only one of her mother, The delight of her who bore her. Maidens see and acclaim her; Queens and concubines, and praise her. of a collection is it? Is its organization haphazard, or is its collection of poems organized to tell a story? Evidence points in both directions. The historicalcritical method justifies reading the book either as a loose anthology or as a unified work. What Genre of Poetry Is It? Most often, the Song is described as love poetry, sensual poetry, or erotic poetry. What is meant by these terms is rarely discussed; perhaps the reticence is based on the awareness that we have too little evidence to define these genres for ancient Israel. Some units in the Song can safely be categorized as “love poetry” based on the use of the root ’-h-v (bha, “to love”)—found, surprisingly, only seven times in the whole book. Similarly, the label “sensual” is appropriate for passages in which the senses are evoked, both directly and indirectly: “I have come to my garden, / My own, my bride; / I have plucked my myrrh and spice, / Eaten my honey and honeycomb , / Drunk my wine and my milk. / Eat, lovers, and drink: Drink deep of love!” (5:1). The term “erotic poetry,” however, is more slippery: if we understand this term to mean words intended to sexually arouse, all we know is that certain sections of the Song have this effect on some contemporary readers. However, we have no way to tell whether its poetry had the effect of sexual arousal in its setting in antiquity. Without knowing more about its original setting and intended purpose, we cannot determine which of these genres applied to the Song of Songs in ancient times. Ancient Near Eastern Love Poetry In reading the Song, we must be careful not to impose Victorian notions of sexuality , nor any notion about what many presume is a “negative” attitude toward sexuality in Judaism or Christianity.6 The Song may seem odd as a biblical book, yet when viewed in the broader context of the ancient Near East, especially Egyptian literature,7 it is quite normal. (Gaining such perspective illustrates the utility of the historical-critical method: it can correct our own cultural biases.) In terms of style, the was!fs in the Song are quite similar to the following poem written in the period of the Egyptian New Kingdom (mid-sixteenth to early eleventh centuries B.C.E.): 260 How to Read the Bible [18.205.114.205] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 12:35 GMT) The One, the sister without peer, / The handsomest of all! / She looks like the rising morning star / At the start of a happy year. / Shining bright, fair of skin, / Lovely the look of her eyes, / Sweet the speech of her lips, / She has not a word too much. / Upright neck, shining breast, / Hair true lapis lazuli; / Arms surpassing gold, / Fingers like lotus buds. / Heavy thighs, narrow waist, / Her legs parade her beauty; / With graceful steps she treads the ground, / Captures my heart by her movements. / She causes all men’s neck / To turn about to see her; / Joy has he whom she embraces, / He is like the first of men! / When she steps outside she seems / Like that other One [the Sun].8 Like the Song, but unlike the rest of biblical literature, this poem refers to the female lover as “sister.” Like all but one of the was!fs in the Song, the Egyptian author describes the body from top to bottom, describing many of the same body parts mentioned in the biblical book. The comparisons are equally odd (by modern Western sensibilities)—the Egyptians extol blue hair (“Hair true lapis lazuli”) while the Israelites desire elongated noses (“Your nose like the Lebanon tower / That faces toward Damascus”; 7:5). The was!fs in both cultures move from describing the body to drawing implications from that description. Thus the Egyptian text states: “With graceful steps she treads the ground, / Captures my heart by her movements. / She causes all men’s necks / To turn about to see her.” Similarly, the Israelite poem continues: “I say: Let me climb the palm, / Let me take hold of its branches; / Let your breasts be like clusters of grapes, / Your breath like the fragrance of apples” (7:9). One could argue that some of the authors of the was!fs in the Song were aware of the Egyptian traditions. Mesopotamian sources, meanwhile, preserve a significant collection of potency incantations; they, too, can help us draw a picture of ancient Near Eastern sexuality. One of the more tame incantations goes like this: At the head of my bed a ram is tied. At the foot of my bed a weaned sheep is tied. Around my waist their wool is tied. Like a ram eleven times, like a weaned sheep twelve times, like a partridge thirteen times, make love to me, and like a pig fourteen times, like a wild bull fifty times, like a stag fifty times! Etc.9 This incantation shows that some ancient Mesopotamians addressed their concerns with sexual potency in a rather open and creative fashion. The theme of competition among rivals, so prominent in the Song (see, e.g., 1:8), appears in Mesopotamiam literature as well: I sense my beauty spots, / My upper lip becomes moist / While the “Drink Deep of Love!” 261 lower one trembles. / I shall embrace him, I shall kiss him, / I shall look at him; / I shall attain victory. . . / Over my gossipy women, / And I shall return happily to my lover.10 These literatures clearly are concerned with real lovers, they are secular, and they are avidly sexual. Their similarity to the Song suggests that we should read it in the same manner. The Taming of the Song Despite this, tradition has tamed the Song by allegorizing it in a variety of ways. Thus, the Targum, the ancient Aramaic translation of the Bible, views the Song as a historical allegory about the “marriage” between God and Israel. Consider the provocative exclamation, “I have taken off my robe— / Should I don it again? / I have bathed my feet— / Should I soil them again?” (5:3; transl. adapted). The woman is announcing to the man outside that she is naked in bed. The Targum renders this verse as an expression of national guilt and moral judgment: The assembly of Israel answered before the prophets: “Lo, already, I have removed the yoke of His commandments from me and have worshipped the idols of the nations. How can I have the face to return to Him?” The Lord of the World replied to them through the prophets: “Moreover, I Myself have already lifted My Presence from among you, how then can I return since you have done evil? I have cleansed my feet from your filth, and how can I soil them among you with your evil deeds?”11 Even Abraham ibn Ezra, considered one of the more liberal medieval interpreters (because of Spinoza’s advocacy of his work), who himself authored secular love poetry, was adamant that the Song must be interpreted allegorically. In his introduction to the Song, he states: “The Song of Songs is certainly not a poem about desire,” adding, “do not be surprised that the bride is a parable for Israel, and her groom is God, for such is the habit of the prophets.” Ibn Ezra then brings a set of five prophetic examples and one example from Psalms that use parables of lovers to represent Israel and God (including Ezekiel 16; see “Refuting Popular Beliefs” in chapter 19). However, all of the passages that Ibn Ezra cites clearly indicate that the units are parables. For example, while Isaiah 5 begins, “Let me sing for my beloved / A song of my lover about his vineyard,” verse 7 spells out who the players are: “For the vineyard of the LORD of Hosts / Is the House of Israel, / And the seedlings he lovingly tended / Are the men of 262 How to Read the Bible [18.205.114.205] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 12:35 GMT) Judah.” In contrast, no similar statement in the Song suggests that it is allegorical , nor that the male lover is God, and the female lover Israel. In fact, the Song contains no references to God at all.12 As I have argued, the secular Near Eastern love poems to which it is so similar suggest that the Song was originally a secular work, dealing with two unmarried lovers.13 The Song itself gives no indication that it intends its words differently. Sex in the Song Versus the Rest of the Bible The Song depicts premarital sex positively; this attitude differs dramatically from what is found elsewhere in the Bible. But the Bible is a highly complex book reflecting the outlook of different groups, so such a difference is not surprising. It certainly does not justify reading the book allegorically. Moreover, in the legal collections, the core objection to a young woman engaging in premarital activity is not a moral one. Instead, the problem is that according to biblical law, a woman did not always have the full right to decide how she might use her sexuality.14 Thus, for example, according to the Covenant Collection: (Exod. 22:15) If a man seduces a virgin for whom the bride-price has not been paid, and lies with her, he must make her his wife by payment of a bride-price. (16) If her father refuses to give her to him, he must still weigh out silver in accordance with the bride-price for virgins. The law’s only concern is with the father’s compensation, called the brideprice ,15 and not with any morally improper behavior by the daughter. Ambiguities The ambiguity of the Song is one of the features that make it so remarkable. Poetry is ambiguous, but this book seems to revel in that quality. Double Entendre Much of the book’s ambiguity is sexual in nature. For example, in the second dream sequence from chapter 5, we read: “Drink Deep of Love!” 263 (2) I was asleep, / But my heart was wakeful. / Hark, my beloved knocks! / “Let me in, my own, / My darling, my faultless dove! / For my head is drenched with dew, / My locks with the damp of night.” / (3) I had taken off my robe— / Was I to don it again? / I had bathed my feet— / Was I to soil them again? / (4) My beloved took his hand off the latch, / And my heart was stirred for him. / (5) I rose to let in my beloved; / My hands dripped myrrh— / My fingers, flowing myrrh— / Upon the handles of the bolt. / (6) I opened the door for my beloved, / But my beloved had turned and gone. / I was faint because of what he said. / I sought, but found him not; / I called, but he did not answer. This passage turns on the ambiguity of whether the woman’s “house” is really her dwelling, or her body. Is the male lover standing outside trying to get inside; or is he next to her, trying to enter her? In what sense is he “knocking”? In verses 4–5, are the “hand” and the “latch” euphemisms for genitalia? In verse 3, when the woman describes herself as clean and naked, is she saying that the man should go away because she is already half-asleep, or is she teasing him to come nearer?16 Representing the body as a house is a frequent metaphor in many cultures ; this allows the poet of this unit to introduce numerous double meanings. Such sexual ambiguities fill the Song. For example, the vineyard in the Song is an image that often alludes to the woman’s ripe and sweet sexuality. Most likely this symbol plays on the visual similarity between a cluster of dark grapes and the pubic triangle.17 Thus, the woman can say: “My mother’s sons . . . made me guard the vineyards; / My own vineyard I did not guard” (1:6)—this means that her brothers tried to keep her chaste by making her work out in the field, but she fooled them. While guarding the literal vineyards, she was free with her own figurative one. Another case where vineyard is used symbolically is 1:13, where the woman says of her male lover: “My beloved to me is a spray of henna blooms / In the vineyards of En-gedi” (transl. adapted). However, En-gedi housed the ancient Judean perfume industry,18 not a wine vineyard. Thus, “vineyards ” is not meant literally; this verse is really a veiled reference to the woman enjoying the man’s body. The Song’s Conclusion A different type of ambiguity appears at the conclusion of the Song. It affects how we read the book as a whole—if we choose to read it as a meaningfully arranged collection. The JPS translation renders the last verse (in which the 264 How to Read the Bible [18.205.114.205] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 12:35 GMT) female lover is speaking) as follows: “Hurry, my beloved, / Swift as a gazelle or a young stag, / To the hills of spices!” (8:14). The initial word is berach (cr_b<4), which actually means, “Flee away!” Taken on its own, this verse would seem to be an unhappy ending to the Song, where the woman tells the man (poetically), “Scram!” However, “the hills of spices” may refer to the woman’s body! The similarity in shape between breasts and mountains suggests this interpretation,19 as does the following verse: “My beloved to me is a bag of myrrh / Lodged between my breasts” (1:14), which more directly depicts the image evoked by “hills of spices.” Thus, even the conclusion to the Song is uncertain. Is it about love and desire fulfilled, or about unrequited love and desire? Canonization of the Song In chapter 27, I will deal more generally with the issue of how various books became part of the Bible, what is often referred to as the canonization of the Bible. Suffice it to say here that the traditional allegorical interpretation of the Song (see above) raises a question: Was the Song viewed as allegory after it became canonical, or did it become canonical only after it was viewed as allegory? The way we answer this question determines our basic approach to the question of how books became part of the Bible. We can define biblical books as only those that the people already treated as sacred and religious. Alternatively, we can broaden the notion of books included within the Bible to all books that were central to Israel for a variety of reasons. If the latter is the case, then Jews might have held the Song as a central work—a cultural treasure—on aesthetic grounds. Maybe they even used it for entertainment in settings like wedding receptions.20 Perhaps only later, once it was in the same “book” alongside prophetic parables that used the image of God as husband and Israel as wife, did the allegorical interpretation take precedence over the literal one. Conclusions Although we know little about who wrote the Song of Songs, we can venture a few points of orientation. Secondarily attributed to Solomon, the book is a collection of poems of uncertain genre—probably love poems and sensual poetry “Drink Deep of Love!” 265 that its original audience may have considered erotic. The Song’s attitudes and wording resemble other ancient Near Eastern poetry of those genres. It was not written as an allegory, although rabbinic tradition has treated it that way. Its hearty approach to sexuality does not fit most depictions of love and sex elsewhere in the Bible; but given the nature of the Bible as a diverse collection itself, this should not be surprising. The ambiguity of the imagery in this book contributes to its beauty. Finally, the Song may have become part of the Bible even while the ancient Israelites cherished it as a secular work that celebrates human love. 266 How to Read the Bible ...