National Republican., 1874-05-16
gatiaual gepnbIifau
THE s6NG az H0L6MoN.

LIE 6ONO UF 6ULOUONs
The reign of Solomon, says the Wsstminister
RsvisD, Is the Hebrew ideal Of the profane
or purely secular life. His alliapces made
without any regard for religious Distractions,
his splendid harem, the order and nag1aacence
OF his palace, the industrial and conneFcial
prosperity OF his reign, the writings attsfeated
to him, and, above al, the silence imposed On
those formidable sgitators, the 'snsbi," or
prophets, all point to an interval of careless
and joyous fsstivity. Whatever the influence
Of Moses once was, it was lost now. Ewsld In
deed has shown in the most conclusive msnner
that the fame of Moses underwent long
eclipse after his death; that his name was
almost unknown under the judges and during
the early ages of the moDarchy, and that q
was not until within two centuries Of the fall
Of the kingdom of Judah that he attained his
subsequent grandeur. Tins theSe was kind
Of toferatioh Of foreign cults, Induced by in
tercourse With other nations, aQd supported
by the influence Of Egyptian, Phenlcisn, or
Moabtte women It was an interval in the
sacred career Of Israel-a liberal and Iat!tudi-
marian age, in which the consciousness of an
sli-absorbing destiny was as yet unfelt.
Under such conditions as these the drama we
are considering was produced. For IL is
drama The widest opinions, It is true, have
been held on this point. 1t has been regarded
on the one hand as poem properly so'ealled,
with both unity and progress of events, and on
the other as q mere collection OF love songs.
bound together only by the analogy Of their
nature. But NJ. Renan, by an exhaustive ex-
animation Of the work itself, considered verse
by verse, has shown In the clearest manner
that IL is a pastoral drama. The characters
are distinct and well Defined and IL is sufficient
to say that, whoever was its author, certainly
Solomon was not. The part he plays is but a
poor one, and, Indeed, an ill-disguised hostility
to his reign and his memory pervades the
whole composition. The free tribes of the
North preserved to the last more of the
Semitic spirit and nomadie impatience of Or
ganized control, and, as we shall have occasion
to show, the "'Song" was undoubtedly a North
ern composition. Briefly described, the drG-
mats perSone are as follows: The Sulamite, a
young girl of the tribe Of Issachar, carried off
from her native village of Suiem by the SER
wants Of Solomon and brought into the harem
at Jerusalem. Her lover, a young man of the
same village, follows her, and with whom,
after several interviews, she at last escapes.
Solomon, who is displayed as the powerful but
unsuccessful suitor, and various choruses of
men and women of Jerusalem, odalisques and
ladies of the seraglio, and at the close OF the
drama the brothers of the Sulamite.
The concluding verses from a moral drawn
from the events of the play, and were doubt
less placed in the mouth Of a sage or elder.
The Song Of Songs, then, is q composition oc-
cupying middle position between the regular
drama and the eclogue or pastoral dialogue.
Regular drama, indeed, in our sense of the
word, did not exist among the Jews. The idea
as well as the practice was entirely opposed TO
their habits Of thought, and in later times
they regarded IL with the strongest aversion.
The High Priest, Jason, was execrated for
having established gymnasium at Jerusalem
and celebrated the Greek festivals. Herod
outraged this feeling still more deeply when
he built theatre in the holy city and encour-
aged dramatic representations. The taste for
this art, indeed, is still wanting in races of
Semitic extraction. The Musselman of our
own day still retains his old antipathy toward
1t. 1t has never succeeded even in Algeria.
When, therefore, We speak of this poem as
drama, we must entirely lay aside the idea of
Its being ever acted publicly and with what we
consider the necessary decorations of q theatre.
And yet undoubtedly 1t was acted.