Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 3.djvu/355

 CANTICLE

303

CANTICLE

is a continually progressive action that represents the development of the warm friendship and affection of the pair, then the bridal union and the married life of the royal couple. The bride, however, is exhibited U a simple shepherdess, consequently, when the king takes her, she lias to undergo a training for the posi- tion of queen; in the course of this training occur various trials and sorrows (hi, 1; v, 5 sqq.; vi, 11 — ■ Heb., 12*.

Various meanings have been attributed to the con- tents of the song. Before the sixteenth century tradi- tion gave an allegorical or symbolical meaning to the love of Solomon lor the Sulamit ess. The view held by the Jewish Synagogue was expressed by Akiba and Aben Ezra: that held by the Church, by Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, and Jerome. An opin- ion opposed to these found only isolated expression. Akiba (first century after Christ) speaks severely of those who would strike the book from the Sacred Canon, while St. Philastrius (fourth century) refers to others who regarded it not as the work of the Holy ("diost but as the composition of a purely sensuous poet. Theodore of Mopsuestia aroused much indigna- tion by declaring the Canticle of Canticles to be a love- song of Solomon's, and his contemptuous treatment of it gave great offence (.Mansi. Coll. Cone. IX. -Ml sqq.: Migne. P. G., I.XYI, 699 sqq.). At the (Ecu- menical Council of Constantinople (.5.53), Theodore's view was rejected as heretical, and his own pupil, Theodoret, brought forward against him the unani- mous testimony of the 1' at hers i Migne. P. < I., LXXXI, 62). Theodore's opinion was not revived until the sixteenth century, when the Calvinisi Sebastien Cas- talion (Cast alio), and also Johannes Clericus, made use of it. Tin- Anabaptists became partisans of this view; later adherents of the same opinion were Mieh- aelis, Teller. Herder, and F.ichhorn. A middle posi- tion is taken by the " typical " exposition of the book. For the first and immediate sense the typical interpre- tation holds firmly to the historical and secular mean- ing, which has always been regarded by the Church as heretical: this interpretation gives, however, to the "Song of Love", a second and higher sense. As,

na ly. the figure of Solomon was a type of Christ,

SO is the actual love of Solomon for a shepherdess. or for the daughter of Pharaoh, intended as a symbol of the love ot ( 'hrist for His ( 'hurch. Honorius of Autun and Luis of Leon (Aloysius Legionensis! did not actu- ally teach this view, although their method of expres- sion might lie misleading cf. < lornelius a Lapide, Prol. iti Canticum, c. i). In earlier times reference was of- ten made to a first and literal meaning of the words "i a text, which meaning, however, was not the real sense of the context as intended by the author, but eld to lie only its external covering or "husk". Entirely dissimilar to this method is the typical expo- sition of modern times, which accepts an actual double meaning of the text, the two senses being connected and intended by the author. Bossuet and Calmet may. perhaps, be regarded as holding this view: it is

unmistakably held by the Protestant cot

Delitzsch and Zdckler, as also by Kingsbury tin The

Speaker's Commentary) and Kossowicz. A few

ln.ld to 'his view, but the number does not include Lowth (cf. De sacra poesi Ilebr. pre].. 31). Grotius makes it evident, not so much in winds :l - in the method of exposition, that he is opposed to a interpretation. At the present day most non- Catholics are strongly opposed to such an exposition; on the other hand most Catholics accept the allegori- terpretation of the book.

VUegory. ["he reasons for this interpretation are to be found not only in tradition and the decision of the (.'hurch, but also in the song itself. As long as the effort is made to follow the thread of an ordinary love-song, so long will it be impossible to give a coherent exposition, and many

despair of ever obtaining a successful interpretation. In the commentary of the present writer, "Comment, in Eccl. et Canticum Canticorum" (Paris, 1890), a number of examples are given of the typical and of the purely secular interpretations, and besides these, in treating of each of the larger divisions, the varying methods of exposition are carefully investigated. The proper connection of scenes and parts can only be found in the realm of the ideal, in allegory. In no other way can the dignity and sanctity befitting the Scriptures be preserved and the striking title, "Song of Songs", receive a satisfactory explanation. The allegory, however, can be shown as possible and ob- vious by means of numerous passages in the Old and the New Testament, in which the relation of Cm I to the Synagogue and of Christ to the Church or to the adoring soul is represented under the symbol of mar- riage or betrothal (Jer., ii, 2; Ps. xliv ; Heb.. xlv; Osee, ii, 19 sqq.; Ezech., xvi, S sqq.: Matth., xxv, 1 sqq.; II Cor., xi, 2; Eph., v, 23 sqq.; Apoc, xix, 7 sq., etc.). A similar manner of speaking occurs fre- quently in Christian literature, nor does it appear forced or artificial. The testimony of Theodoret to the teaching of the Early Church is very important. He names Eusebius in Palestine, Origen in Egypt, Cyprian in ( 'arthage, and "the Elders who stood close to the Apostles", consequently. Basil, the two Greg- orys, Diodorus, and Chrysostom, "and all in agree- ment with one another". To these may be added Ambrose (Migne, P. L., XIII, 18.5.5, 1911), Philastrius (Migne, P. I,.. XII, 1267), Jerome (Migne. P. L.. XXII 547, 395; XXIII. 263), and Augustine (Migne, P. L., XXXIV, 372, 925; XII, 556). It follows from this, that the typical interpretation, also, contradicts tra- dition, even if it does not come within the decree pronounced against Theodore of Mopsuestia. This method of exposition lias, moreover, very few ad- herents, because the typical can only be applied to separate individuals or things, and cannot be used for the interpretation of a connected text which con- tains only one genuine and proper meaning. The foundation of the typical interpretation is destroyed at once when the historical explanation is held to be indefensible.

In the allegorical interpretation of the song, it makes no essential difference whether the bride is taken as a symbol oi "iiue, that is, of the

congregation of tin- < )ld Covenant or of the Church of God of the New Covenant. In truth, the song turns aside from both; by the spouse should be under- stood human nature as elected {electa, elevata, sc. natura humana) and received by God. This is em- bodied, above all. in the great. Church of God upon earth, which God takes to Himself with the love of a bridegroom, makes the crowning point of all His ex- ternal works, and adorns with the bridal ornament of supernatural grace. In the song the bride is not reproached with sins and guilt but. on the contrary, her good qualities and beauty receive high | consequently, the chosen community of God appears here under that form which is. according to the Vpo tie, without spot or blemish (Eph., v, 27). It is plain that the Canticle of Canticles finds its most evident application in the most holy Humanity of Jesus -t intimate bond of love with the Godhead, and is absolutely spotless and essentially sanctified; after this to the most holy Mother of God as the most beautiful flower of the Church of God. (In regard to a twofold sense of this kind in the Scriptures, et "Zeitschrifl fur katholische Theologie, 1903, p. 381.) The soul that has been purified by grace is also in a more remote yet real sense a worthy bride of the Lord. The actual mean- ing of Canticles is not. however, to be limited to any one of these applications, but is to be appropriated to the elected " bride of God in her relation of devotion to God".