the House of Commons, was the elder son of Charles Manners-Sutton
(q.v.), afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, and was born on the 29th of
January 1780. Educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, he
graduated B.A. in 1802, and was called to the bar at Lincoln's Inn in
1806. At the general election of this year he was returned to parliament
in the Tory interest as member for Scarborough, and in 1809 became
judge-advocate-general in the ministry of Spencer Perceval. He retained
this position until June 1817, when he was elected speaker in succession
to Charles Abbot, created Baron Colchester, refusing to exchange this
office in 1827 for that of home secretary. In 1832 he abandoned
Scarborough and was returned to parliament as one of the members for the
university of Cambridge. Before the general election of 1832
Manners-Sutton had intimated his desire to retire from the position of
speaker and had been voted an annuity of L4000 a year. The ministry of
Earl Grey, however, reluctant to meet the reformed House of Commons with
a new and inexperienced occupant of the chair, persuaded him to retain
his office, and in 1833 he was elected speaker for the seventh time.
Some feeling had been shown against him on this occasion owing to his
Tory proclivities, and the Whigs frequently complained that outside the
House he was a decided partisan. The result was that when a new
parliament met in February 1835 a sharp contest ensued for the
speakership, and Manners-Sutton was defeated by James Abercromby,
afterwards Lord Dunfermline. In March 1835 the retiring speaker was
raised to the peerage as Baron Bottesford and Viscount Canterbury. In
1835 he was appointed high commissioner for Canada, but owing to
domestic reasons he never undertook the appointment. He died in London
on the 21st of July 1845 and was buried at Addington. His first wife was
Lucy (d. 1815), daughter of John Denison of Ossington, by whom he had
two sons and a daughter. Both his sons, Charles John (1812-1869), and
John Henry Thomas (1814-1877), succeeded in turn to the viscounty. By
his second wife, Ellen (d. 1845), widow of John Home-Purves, he had a
daughter.
CANTERBURY, a city and county of a city, the metropolis of an
archdiocese of the Church of England, and a municipal, county and
parliamentary borough of Kent, England, 62 m. E.S.E, of London by the
South-Eastern & Chatham railway. Pop. (1901) 24,889. It lies on the
river Stour, which here debouches from a beautiful narrow valley of the
North Downs, the low but abrupt elevations of which command fine views
of the city from the west and south, while the river presently enters
upon the flat belt of land which separates the elevated Isle of Thanet
from the rest of Kent. This belt represents the existence, in early
historic times, of a sea-strait, and Fordwich, little more than 2 m.
north-east of Canterbury, was once accessible for shipping. The city
surrounds the precincts of the great cathedral.
_The Cathedral_.--It was to Canterbury, as the capital of Aethelberht,
the fourth Saxon king of Kent, that in 597 Augustine and his
fellow-missionaries came from Rome, and their settlement by Aethelberht
in his capital became the origin of its position, held ever since, as
the metropolis of the Church of England. Aethelberht, whose queen,
Bertha, was already a Christian, gave the missionaries a church whose
mythical founder was King Lucius. Augustine was a Benedictine and
established the monastery of that order attached to the cathedral; this
foundation was set upon a firm basis after the Norman Conquest by
Archbishop Lanfranc, who placed its charge (as distinct from that of the
diocese) in the hands of a prior.
History of the building.
Preparatory to the description of the cathedral, the principal epochs in
the history of its erection may be noted. The Romano-British church
occupied by St Augustine, of basilica form, remained long in use, though
it was largely rebuilt by Archbishop Odo, c. 950; after further
vicissitudes it was destroyed by fire in 1067. Archbishop Lanfranc,
taking up his office in 1070, undertook the building of an entirely new
church, but under Anselm (c. 1100) Prior Ernulf rebuilt the eastern
part, and his successor Conrad carried on the work. A fire destroyed
much of this part of the building in 1174, and from that year the
architect, William of Sens, took up the work of rebuilding until 1178,
when, on his suffering serious injury by falling from a scaffold,
another William, commonly distinguished as the Englishman, carried on
the work and completed it in 1184. In 1376 Archbishop Sudbury entered
upon the construction of a new nave, and Prior Chillenden continued this
under Archbishop Courtenay. The building of the central tower was
undertaken c. 1495 by Prior Goldstone, with the counsel of Selling, his
predecessor, and Archbishop Morton.
Exterior.
This Perpendicular tower is the most notable feature of the exterior. It
rises in two storeys to a height of 235 ft. from the ground, and is
known variously as Bell Harry tower from the great bell it contains, or
as the Angel steeple from the gilded figure of an angel which formerly
adorned the summit. The Perpendicular nave is flanked at the west front
by towers, whose massive buttresses, rising in tiers, serve to enhance
by contrast the beautiful effect of the unbroken straight lines of Bell
Harry tower. The south-western of these towers is an original
Perpendicular structure by Prior Goldstone, while the north-western was
copied from it in 1834-1840, replacing a Norman tower which had carried
a spire until 1705 and had become unsafe. The north-west and south-west
transepts are included in Chillenden's Perpendicular reconstruction; but
east of these earlier work is met with. The south-east transept exhibits
Norman work; the projecting chapel east of this is known as Anselm's
tower. The cathedral terminates eastward in a graceful apsidal form,
with the final addition of the circular eastern chapel built by William
the Englishman, and known as the Corona or Becket's Crown. St Andrew's
tower or chapel on the north side, corresponding to Anselm's on the
south, is the work of Ernulf. From this point westward the various
monastic buildings adjoin the cathedral on the north side, so that the
south side is that from which the details of the exterior must be
examined.
Interior.
When the nave of the cathedral is entered, the complete separation of
the interior into two main parts, not only owing to the distinction
between the two main periods of building; but by an actual structural
arrangement, is realized as an unusual and, as it happens, a most
impressive feature. In most English cathedrals the choir is separated
from the nave by a screen; at Canterbury not only is this the case, but
the separation is further marked by a broad flight of steps leading up
to the screen, the choir floor (but not its roof) being much higher than
that of the nave. Chillenden, in rebuilding the nave, retained only the
lower parts of some of the early Norman walls of Lanfranc and the piers
of the central tower arches. These piers were encased or altered on
Perpendicular lines. In the choir, the late 12th-century work of the two
Williams, the notable features are its great length, the fine
ornamentation and the use of arches both round and pointed, a remarkable
illustration of the transition between the Norman and Early English
styles; the prolific use of dark marble in the shafts and mouldings
strongly contrasting with the light stone which is the material
principally used; and, finally, the graceful incurve of the main arcades
and walls at the eastern end of the choir where it joins the chapel of
the Trinity, an arrangement necessitated by the preservation of the
earlier flanking chapels or towers of St Anselm and St Andrew. From the
altar eastward the floor of the church is raised again above that of the
choir. The choir screen was built by Prior de Estria, c. 1300. The
organ is not seen, being hidden in the triforium and played from the
choir. There are several tombs of archbishops in the choir. The
south-east transept serves as the chapel of the King's school and
exhibits the work of William of Sens in alteration of that of Ernulf.
Anselm's chapel or tower, already mentioned, may be noticed again as
containing a Decorated window (1336). This style is not common in the
cathedral.
Becket's shrine. Pilgrimages.
Behind the altar is Trinity Chapel, in the centre of which stood the
celebrated shrine of St Thomas of Canterbury. The priory owed its chief
fame to the murder of Archbishop Becket (1170) in the church, his
canonization as St Thomas of Canterbury, and the resort of the Christian
world on pilgrimage to his shrine. Miracles were almost immediately said
to be worked at his grave in the crypt and at the well in which his
garments had been washed; and from the time when Henry II. did his
penance for the murder in the church, and the battle of Alnwick was
gained over the Scots a few days afterwards--it was supposed as a
result--the fame of the martyr's power and the popularity of his
worship became established in England. On the rebuilding of the
cathedral after the fire of 1174, a magnificent shrine was erected for
him in Trinity Chapel, which was built for the purpose, and became
thronged for three centuries by pilgrims and worshippers of all classes,
from kings and emperors downward. Henceforward the interests of the city
became bound up in those of the cathedral, and were shown in the large
number of hostels for the accommodation of pilgrims, and of shops
containing wares especially suited to their tastes. A pilgrimage to
Canterbury became not only a pious exercise, but a favourite summer
excursion; and the poet Chaucer, writing in the 14th century, gives an
admirable picture of such pilgrimages, with the manners and behaviour of
a party of pilgrims, leisurely enjoying the journey and telling stories
on the road. The English language even preserved two words originating
in these customs--a "canterbury," or a "canterbury tale," a phrase used
for a fiction, and a "canter," which is a short form for a "canterbury
gallop," an allusion to the easy pace at which these pilgrimages were
performed. The shrine with its vast collected wealth was destroyed, and
every reminiscence connected with it as far as possible effaced, by King
Henry VIII.'s commissioners in 1538. But some of the beautiful old
windows of stained glass, illustrating the miracles wrought in connexion
with the saint, are preserved. The north-west transept was the actual
scene of Becket's murder; the spot where he fell is shown on the floor,
but this part of the building is of later date than the tragedy.
Close to the site of the shrine is the fine tomb of Edward the Black
Prince, with a remarkable portrait effigy, and above it his helmet,
shield and other equipment. There is also in this chapel the tomb of
King Henry IV. The Corona, at the extreme cast of the church, contains
the so-called St Augustine's chair in which the archbishops are
enthroned. It is of marble, but its name is not deserved, as it dates
probably from c. 1200. The western part of the crypt, beneath the choir,
is the work of Ernulf, and perhaps incorporates some of Lanfranc's work.
The chapel of St John or St Gabriel, beneath Anselm's tower, is still
used for service, in which the French language is used; it was devoted
to this purpose in 1561, on behalf of French Protestant refugees, who
were also permitted to carry on their trade as weavers in the crypt. The
eastern and loftier part of the crypt, with its apsidal termination, is
the work of William the Englishman. Here for some time lay the body of
Becket, and here the celebrated penance of Henry II. was performed.
Monastic buildings.
The chief entrance to the precincts is through an ornate gateway at the
south-west, called Christchurch gateway, and built by Prior Goldstone in
1517. Among the remains of the monastic buildings there may be mentioned
the Norman ruins of the infirmary, the fine two-storeyed treasury and
the lavatory tower, Norman in the lower part and Perpendicular in the
upper. The cloisters are of various dates, containing a little rich
Norman work, but were very largely rebuilt by Prior Chillenden. The
upper part of the chapter-house is also his work, but the lower is by
Prior de Estria. The library is modern. The site of the New Hall of the
monastery is covered by modern buildings of King's school, but the
Norman entry-stair is preserved--a magnificent example of the style,
with highly ornate arcading.
The principal dimensions of the cathedral arc: length (outside) 522 ft.,
nave 178 ft., choir 180 ft. The nave is 71 ft. in breadth and 80 ft. in
height.
Province and diocese.
The archbishop of Canterbury is primate of all England; the
ecclesiastical province of Canterbury covers England and Wales south of
Cheshire and Yorkshire; and the diocese covers a great part of Kent with
a small part of Sussex. The following is a list of archbishops of
Canterbury:--
1. Augustine, 597 to 605. 55. Thomas Bradwardin, 1349.
2. Lawrence (Laurentius), 605 56. Simon Islip, 1349 to 1366.
to 619. 57. Simon Langham, 1366 to
3. Mellitus, 619 to 624. 1368.
4. Justin. 624 to 627. 58. William Whittlesea, 1368
5. Honorius, 627 to 653. to 1374.
6. Deusdedit (Frithona), 655 59. Simon Sudbury, 1375 to
to 664. 1381.
7. Theodore, 668 to 690. 60. William Courtenay, 1381 to
8. Brethwald (Berhtuald), 693 1396.
to 731. 61. Thomas Arundel, 1396 to
9. Taetwine. 731 to 734. 1414.
10. Nothelm, 734 to 740. 62. Henry Chicheley, 1414 to
11. Cuthbert, 740 to 758. 1443.
12. Breogwine, 759 to 762. 63. John Stafford, 1443 to 1452.
13. Jaenberht, 763 to 790. 64. John Kemp, 1452 to 1454.
14. Aethelhard, 790 to 803. 65. Thomas Bourchier, 1454 to
15. Wulfred, 803 to 829. 1486.
16. Fleogild, 829 to 830. 66. John Morton, 1486 to 1500.
17. Ceolnoth, 830 to 870. 67. Henry Dean (Dene), 1501 to
18. Aethelred, 870 to 889. 1503.
19. Plegemund, 889 to 914. 68. William Warham, 1503 to
20. Aethelm, 914 to 923. 1532.
21. Wulfelm, 923 to 942. 69. Thomas Cranmer, 1533 to
22. Odo, 942 to 959. 1556.
23. Aelsine, 959. 70. Reginald Pole, 1556 to 1558.
24. Dunstan, 960 to 988. 71. Matthew Parker, 1559 to
25. Aethelgar, 988 to 989. 1575.
26. Sigeric, 990 to 994. 72. Edmund Grindal, 1575 to
27. Aelfric, 995 to 1005. 1583.
28. Alphege (Aelfeah), 1005 to 73. John Whitgift, 1583 to 1604.
1012. 74. Richard Bancroft, 1604 to
29. Lyfing, 1013 to 1020. 1610.
30. Aethelnoth, 1020 to 1038. 75. George Abbot, 1610 to 1633.
31. Eadsige, 1038 to 1050. 76. William Laud, 1633 to 1645.
32. Robert of Jumieges, 1051 to 77. William Juxon, 1660 to 1663.
1052. 78. Gilbert Sheldon, 1663 to
33. Stigand, 1052 to 1070. 1677.
34. Lanfranc, 1070 to 1089. 79. William Sancroft, 1678 to
35. Anselm, 1093 to 1109. 1691.
36. Ralph de Turbine, 1114 to 80. John Tillotson, 1691 to 1694.
1122. 81. Thomas Tenison, 1694 to
37. William de Corbeuil 1715.
(Curbellio), 1123 to 1136. 82. William Wake, 1716 to 1737.
38. Theobald, 1139 to 1161. 83. John Potter, 1737 to 1747.
39. Thomas Becket, 1162 to 1170. 84. Thomas Herring, 1747 to
40. Richard, 1174 to 1184. 1757.
41. Baldwin, 1185 to 1190. 85. Matthew Hutton, 1757 to
42. Reginald Fitz-Jocelyn, 1191. 1758.
43. Hubert Walter, 1193 to 1205. 86. Thomas Secker, 1758 to
44. Stephen Langton, 1207 to 1768.
1228. 87. Frederick Cornwallis, 1768
45. Richard Wethershed, 1229 to 1783.
to 1231. 88. John Moore, 1783 to 1805.
46. Edmund Rich (de Abbendon) 89. Charles Manners-Sutton,
1234 to 1240. 1805 to 1828.
47. Boniface of Savoy, 1241 to 90. William Howley, 1828 to
1270. 1848.
48. Robert Kilwardby, 1273 to 91. John Bird Sumner, 1848 to
1278. 1862.
49. John Peckham, 1279 to 1292. 92. Charles Thomas Longley,
50. Robert Winchelsea, 1293 to 1862 to 1868.
1313. 93. Archibald Campbell Tait,
51. Walter Reynolds, 1313 to 1868 to 1882.
1327. 94. Edward White Benson, 1882
52. Simon de Meopham, 1328 to to 1896.
1333. 95. Frederick Temple, 1896 to
53. John Stratford, 1333 to 1348. 1903
54. John de Ufford, 1348 to 1349. 96. Randall Thomas Davidson.
The archbishop has a seat at Lambeth Palace, London. There are fragments
in Palace Street of the old archbishop's palace which have been
incorporated with a modern palace.
_Other Ecclesiastical Foundations._--Canterbury naturally abounded in
religious foundations. The most important, apart from the cathedral, was
the Benedictine abbey of St Augustine. This was erected on a site
granted by King Aethelberht outside his capital, in a tract called
Longport. Augustine dedicated it to St Peter and St Paul, but Archbishop
Dunstan added the sainted name of the founder to the dedication, and in
common use it came to exclude those of the apostles. The site is now
occupied by St Augustine's Missionary College, founded in 1844 when the
property was acquired by A.J.B. Beresford Hope. Some ancient remnants
are preserved, the principal being the entrance gateway (1300), with the
cemetery gate, dated a century later, and the guest hall, now the
refectory; but the scanty ruins of St Pancras' chapel are of high
interest, and embody Roman material. The chapel is said to have received
its dedication from St Augustine on account of the special association
of St Pancras with children, and in connexion with the famous story of
St Gregory, w hose attention was first attracted to Britain when he saw
the fair-faced children of the Angles who had been brought to Rome, and
termed them "not Angles but angels."
There were lesser houses of many religious orders in Canterbury, but
only two, those of the Dominicans near St Peter's church in St Peter's
Street, and the Franciscans, also in St Peter's Street, have left
notable remains. The Dominican refectory is used as a chapel. Among the
many churches, St Martin's, Longport, is of the first interest. This was
the scene of the earliest work of Augustine in Canterbury, and had seen
Christian service before his arrival. Its walls contain Roman masonry,
but whether it is in part a genuine remnant of a Romano-British
Christian church is open to doubt. There are Norman, Early English and
later portions; and the font may be in part pre-Norman, and is indeed
associated by tradition with the baptism of Aethelberht himself. St
Mildred's church exhibits Early English and Perpendicular work, and the
use of Roman material is again visible here. St Paul's is of Early
English origin; St Dunstan's, St Peter's and Holy Cross are mainly
Decorated and Perpendicular. The village of Harbledown, on the hill west
of Canterbury on the London road, from the neighbourhood of which a
beautiful view over the city is obtained, has many associations with the
ecclesiastical life of Canterbury. It is mentioned by Chaucer in his
pilgrimage under the name, appropriate to its site, of "Bob up and
down." The almshouses, which occupy the site of Lanfranc's hospital for
lepers, include an ancient hall and a chapel in which the west door and
northern nave arcade are Norman, and are doubtless part of Lanfranc's
buildings. The neighbouring parish church is in great part rebuilt.
Among the numerous charitable institutions in Canterbury there are
several which may be called the descendants of medieval ecclesiastical
foundations.
_City Buildings, &c._--The old city walls may be traced, and the public
walk called the Dane John (derived probably from _donjon_) follows the
summit of a high artificial mound within the lines. The cathedral is
finely seen from this point. Only the massive turreted west gate, of the
later part of the 14th century, remains out of the former six city
gates. The site of the castle is not far from the Dane John, and enough
remains of the Norman keep to show its strength and great size. Among
other buildings and institutions there may be mentioned the guildhall in
High Street, of the early part of the 18th century; the museum, which
includes a fine collection of local, including many Roman, relics; and
the school of art, under municipal management, but founded by the
painter T. Sidney Cooper (d. 1902), who was a resident at Harbledown. A
modern statue of a muse commemorates the poet Christopher Marlowe
(1564-1593), a native of the city; and a pillar indicates the place
where a number of persons were burnt at the stake in the reign of Mary.
The King's school, occupying buildings adjacent to the cathedral,
developed out of the early teaching furnished by the monastery. It was
refounded by Henry VIII. in 1541 (whence its name), and is managed on
the lines of ordinary public schools. It has about 250 boys; and there
is besides a junior or preparatory school. The school is still connected
with the ecclesiastical foundation, the dean and chapter being its
governors.
A noted occasion of festivity in Canterbury is the Canterbury
cricket-week, when the Kent county cricket eleven engages in matches
with other first-class teams, and many visitors are attracted to the
city.
Canterbury has a considerable agriculture trade, breweries, tanneries,
brickworks and other manufactures. The parliamentary borough returns one
member. The city is governed by a mayor, 6 aldermen and 18 councillors.
Area, 3955 acres.
_History of the City._--The existence of a Romano-British town on the
site of Canterbury has already been indicated. It was named
_Durovernum_, and was a flourishing county town on the road from the
Kentish ports to London. Mosaic pavements and other remains have been
found in considerable abundance. The city, known by the Saxons as
_Cantwaraburh_, the town of the men of Kent, was the metropolis of
Aethelberht's kingdom. At the time of the Domesday survey Canterbury
formed part of the royal demesne and was governed by a portreeve as it
had been before the Conquest. In the 13th and 14th centuries, two
bailiffs presided over the burghmote, assisted by a larger and smaller
council. Henry II., by an undated charter, confirmed former privileges
and granted to the citizens that no one should implead them outside the
city walls and that the pleas of the crown should be decided according
to the customs of the city. In 1256 Henry III. granted them the city at
an annual fee farm of L60, also the right of electing their bailiffs.
Confirmations of former charters with additional liberties were granted
by later sovereigns, and Henry VI. incorporated Canterbury, which he
called "one of our most ancient cities," under the style of the mayor
and commonalty, the mayor to be elected by the burgesses. James I. in
1609 confirmed these privileges, giving the burgesses the right to be
called a body corporate and to elect twelve aldermen and a common
council of twenty-four. Charles II., after calling in the charters of
corporations, granted a confirmation in 1684. Canterbury was first
represented in parliament in 1283, and it continued to return two
members until 1885, when the number was reduced to one. A fair was
granted by Henry VI. to the citizens to be held in the city or suburbs
on the 4th of August and the two days following; other fairs were in the
hands of the monasteries; the corn and cattle markets and a general
market have been held by prescription from time immemorial. Canterbury
was a great centre of the silk-weaving trade in the 17th century, large
numbers of Walloons, driven by persecution to England, having settled
there in the reign of Elizabeth. In 1676 Charles II. granted a charter
of incorporation to the Walloon congregation under style of the master,
wardens and fellowship of weavers in the city of Canterbury. The market
for the sale of corn and hops was regulated by a local act in 1801.
See A.P. Stanley, _Historical Memorials of Canterbury_ (London, 1855);
J. Brent, _Canterbury in the Olden Time_ (Canterbury, 1879); J.W. Legg
and W.H. St J. Hope, _Inventories of Christchurch, Canterbury_
(London, 1902); _Victoria County History, Kent_.
CANTHARIDES, or SPANISH FLIES, the common blister-beetles (_Cantharis
vesicatoria_) of European pharmacy. They are bright, iridescent,
golden-green or bluish-coloured beetles (see COLEOPTERA), with the
breast finely punctured and pubescent, head and thorax with a
longitudinal channel, and elytra with two slightly elevated lines. The
insect is from half-an-inch to an inch in length, and from one to two
lines broad, the female being broader in the abdomen and altogether
larger than the male. It is a native of the south of Europe, being found
in Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary and the south of Russia, and
it is also obtained in Siberia. The Spanish fly is also occasionally
found in the south of England. The insects feed upon ash, lilac, privet
and jasmine leaves, and are found more rarely on elder, rose, apple and
poplar trees. Their presence is made known by a powerful disagreeable
odour, which penetrates to a considerable distance. They are collected
for use at late evening or early morning, while in a dull bedewed
condition, by shaking them off the trees or shrubs into cloths spread on
the ground; and they are killed by dipping them into hot water or
vinegar, or by exposing them for some time over the vapour of vinegar.
They are then dried and put up for preservation in glass-stoppered
bottles; and they require to be very carefully guarded against mites and
various other minute insects, to the attacks of which they are
peculiarly liable. It has been shown by means of spectroscopic
observations that the green colour of the elytra, &c., is due to the
presence of chlorophyll; and that the variations of the spectral bands
are sufficient, after the lapse of many years, to indicate with some
certainty the kind of leaves on which the insects were feeding shortly
before they were killed.
Cantharides owe their value to the presence of a peculiar chemical
principle, to which the name _cantharidin_ has been given. It is most
abundant in large full-grown insects, while in very young specimens no
cantharidin at all has been found. From about one-fourth to rather more
than one-half per cent, of cantharidin has been obtained from different
samples; and it has been ascertained that the elytra or wing-sheaths of
the insect, which alone are used in pharmacy, contain more of the active
principle than the soft parts taken together; but apparently
cantharidin is most abundant in the eggs and generative organs.
Cantharidin constitutes from 1/2 to 1% of cantharides. It has the
formula C10H14O4, and on hydrolysis is converted into cantharinic acid,
C10H14O5. It crystallizes in colourless plates and is readily soluble in
alcohol, ether, &c., but not in water. The British Pharmacopeia contains
a large number of preparations of cantharides, but the only one needing
special mention is the tincture, which is meant for internal
administration; the small dose is noteworthy, five minims being probably
the maximum for safety.
The external action of cantharides or cantharidin is extremely
characteristic. When it is applied to the skin there are no obvious
consequences for some hours. Thereafter the part becomes warm and
painful, owing to marked local vascular dilatation. This is the typical
_rubefacient_ action. Soon afterwards there is an accumulation under the
epidermis of a serum derived from the dilated blood-vessels. The
numerous small blisters or vesicles thus derived coalesce, forming a
large sac full of "blister-fluid." The drug is described as a
counter-irritant, though the explanation of this action is very
doubtful. Apparently there is an influence on the afferent nerves of the
part which causes a reflex contraction--some authors say dilatation--of
the vessels in the internal organs that are under the control of the
same segment of the nervous system as that supplying the area of skin
from which the exciting impulse comes. When applied in this fashion a
certain quantity of the cantharides is absorbed.
Taken internally in any but minute doses, the drug causes the most
severe gastro-intestinal irritation, the vomited and evacuated matters
containing blood, and the patient suffering agonizing pain and extreme
depression. The further characteristic symptoms are displayed in the
genito-urinary tract. The drug circulates in the blood in the form of an
albuminate and is slowly excreted by the kidneys. The effect of large
doses is to cause great pain in the renal region and urgent wish to
micturate. The urine is nevertheless small in amount and contains
albumen and blood owing to the local inflammation produced in the kidney
by the passage of the poison through that organ. The drug often has a
marked aphrodisiac action, producing priapism, or in the female sex the
onset of the catamenia or abortion.
Cantharides is used externally for its counter-irritant action. There
are certain definite contra-indications to its use. It must not be
employed in cases of renal disease, owing to the risks attendant upon
absorption. It must always be employed with caution in the case of
elderly persons and children; and it must not be applied to a paralysed
limb (in which the power of healing is deficient), nor to parts upon
which the patient lies, as otherwise a bed-sore is likely to follow its
use. The drug is administered internally in certain cases of impotence
and occasionally in other conditions. Its criminal employment is usually
intended to heighten sexual desire, and has frequently led to death.
The toxic symptoms have already been detailed, the patient usually dying
from arrest of the renal functions. The treatment is far from
satisfactory, and consists in keeping up the strength and diluting the
poison in the blood and in the urine by the administration of bland
fluids, such as soda-water, milk and plain water, in quantities as large
as possible. External warmth should also be applied to the regions
specially affected by the drug.
A very large number of other insects belonging to the same family
possess blistering properties, owing to their containing cantharidin. Of
these the most remarkable is the Telini "fly" of India (_Mylabris
cichorii_), the range of which extends from Italy and Greece through
Egypt and central Asia as far as China. It is very rich in cantharidin,
yielding fully twice as much as ordinary cantharides. Several
green-coloured beetles are, on account of their colour, used as
adulterants to cantharides, but they are very easily detected by
examination with the eye, or, if powdered, with the microscope.
CANTICLES. The Old Testament book of Canticles, or the Song of Solomon,
is called in Hebrew _The Song of Songs_ (that is, _the choicest of
songs_), or, according to the full title which stands as the first verse
of the book, _The choicest of the songs of Solomon_. In the Western
versions the book holds the third place among the so-called Solomonic
writings, following Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. In Hebrew Bibles it
stands among the _Megilloth_, the five books of the Hagiographa which
have a prominent place in the Synagogue service. In printed Bibles and
in German MSS. it is the first of these because it is read at the
Passover, which is the first great feast of the sacred year of the Jews.
No part of the Bible has called forth a greater diversity of opinions
than the Song of Solomon, and this for two reasons. In the first place,
the book holds so unique a position in the Old Testament, that the
general analogy of Hebrew literature is a very inadequate key to the
verbal difficulties, the artistic structure, and the general conception
and purpose of the poem. In point of language the departures from
ordinary Hebrew are almost always in the direction of Aramaic. Many
forms unique in Biblical Hebrew are at once explained by the Aramaic
dialects, but not a few are still obscure. The philological difficulties
of the book are, however, less fundamental than those which lie in the
unique character of the Song of Solomon in point of artistic form, and
in the whole atmosphere of thought and feeling in which it moves. Even
in these respects it is not absolutely isolated. Parallels to the
peculiar imagery may be found in the book of Hosea, in Ezekiel xvi. and
xxiii. and above all in the 45th Psalm; but such links of union to the
general mass of the Old Testament literature are too slight to be of
material assistance in the solution of the literary problem of the book.
Here, again, as in the lexical difficulties already referred to, we are
tempted or compelled to argue from the distant and insecure analogy of
other Eastern literatures, or are thrown back upon traditions of
uncertain origin and ambiguous authority.
The power of tradition has been the second great source of confusion of
opinion about the Song of Solomon. To tradition we owe the title, which
apparently indicates Solomon as the author and not merely as the subject
of the book. The authority of titles in the Old Testament is often
questionable, and in the present case it is certain on linguistic
grounds that the title is not from the hand that wrote the poem; while
to admit that it gives a correct account of the authorship is to cut
away at one stroke all the most certain threads of connexion between the
book and our historical knowledge of the Old Testament people and
literature.
To tradition, again, we owe the prejudice in favour of an allegorical
interpretation, that is, of the view that from verse to verse the Song
sets forth the history of a spiritual and not merely of an earthly love.
To apply such an exegesis to Canticles is to violate one of the first
principles of reasonable interpretation. True allegories are never
without internal marks of their allegorical design. The language of
symbol is not so perfect that a long chain of spiritual ideas can be
developed without the use of a single spiritual word or phrase; and even
were this possible it would be false art in the allegorist to hide away
his sacred thoughts behind a screen of sensuous and erotic imagery, so
complete and beautiful in itself as to give no suggestion that it is
only the vehicle of a deeper sense. Apart from tradition, no one, in the
present state of exegesis, would dream of allegorizing poetry which in
its natural sense is so full of purpose and meaning, so apt in
sentiment, and so perfect in imagery as the lyrics of Canticles. We are
not at liberty to seek for allegory except where the natural sense is
incomplete. This is not the case in the Song of Solomon. On the
contrary, every form of the allegorical interpretation which has been
devised carries its own condemnation in the fact that it takes away from
the artistic unity of the poem and breaks natural sequences of
thought.[1] The allegorical interpretation of the Song of Solomon bad
its rise in the very same conditions which forced a deeper sense, now
universally discarded, upon so many other parts of scripture. Yet
strangely enough there is no evidence that the Jews of Alexandria
extended to the book their favourite methods of interpretation. The
arguments which have been adduced to prove that the Septuagint
translation implies an allegorical exegesis are inadequate;[2] and Philo
does not mention the book. Nor is there any allusion to Canticles in the
New Testament. The first trace of an allegorical view identifying Israel
with the "spouse" appears to be in the Fourth Book of Ezra, near the
close of the 1st Christian century (v. 24, 26; vii. 26). Up to this time
the canonicity of the Canticles was not unquestioned; and the final
decision as to the sanctity of the book, so energetically carried
through by R. Aqiba, when he declared that "the whole world is not worth
the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the
scriptures (or Hagiographa) are holy, but the Canticles most holy," must
be understood as being at the same time a victory of the allegorical
interpretation over the last remains of a view which regarded the poem
as simply erotic.[3]
The form in which the allegorical theory became fixed in the synagogue
is contained in the Midrash _Chazita_ and in the Targum, which is a
commentary rather than a translation. The spouse is Israel, her royal
lover the divine king, and the poem is explained as tracing the great
events of the people's history from the Exodus to the Messianic glory
and final restoration.[4]
The authority of Origen, who, according to Jerome, surpassed himself in
his commentary of ten volumes on this book, established the allegorical
theory in the Christian church in the two main forms in which it has
since prevailed. The bridegroom is Christ, the bride either the church
or the believing soul. The latter conception is, of course, that which
lends itself most readily to purposes of mystical edification, and which
has made Canticles the manual in all ages of a wide-spread type of
religious contemplation. But the other view, which identifies the bride
with the church, must be regarded as the standard of orthodox exegesis.
Of course the allegorical principle admitted of very various
modifications, and readily adapted itself to new religious developments,
such as the rise of Mariolatry. Within the limits of the orthodox
traditions the allegory took various colours, according as its mystical
or its prophetical aspect was insisted on. Among medieval commentators
of the former class S. Bernard holds a pre-eminent place; while the
second class is represented by Nicolaus de Lyra, who, himself a
converted Jew, modified the Jewish interpretation so as to find in the
book an account of the _processus ecclesiae_ under the Old and New
Testaments. The prophetic exegesis reached its culminating point in the
post-Reformation period, when Cocceius found in the Canticles a complete
conspectus of church history. But the relaxation of traditional
authority opened the door to still stranger vagaries of interpretation.
Luther was tempted to understand the book of the political relations of
Solomon and his people. Others detected the loves of Solomon and
Wisdom--a view which found a supporter in Rosenmuller.
The history of the literal interpretation begins with the great
"commentator" of the Syrian Church, Theodorus of Mopsuestia (died 429),
who condemned equally the attempt to find in the book a prophecy of the
blessings given to the church, and the idea even at that time expressed
in some quarters that the book is immoral. Theodorus regarded the
Canticles as a poem written by Solomon in answer to the complaints of
his people about his Egyptian marriage; and this was one of the heresies
charged upon him after his death, which led to his condemnation at the
second council of Constantinople (553 A.D.). A literal interpretation
was not again attempted till in 1544 Chateillon (Castellio or Castalion)
lost his regency at Geneva for proposing to expel the book from the
canon as impure. Grotius (_Annot. in V.T._, 1644) took up a more
moderate position. Without denying the possibility of a secondary
reference designed by Solomon to give his poem a more permanent value,
he regards the Canticles as primarily an [Greek: oaristys] (conjugal
prattle) between Solomon and Pharaoh's daughter. The distinction of a
primary and secondary sense gradually became current not only among the
Remonstrants, but in England (Lightfoot, Lowth) and even in Catholic
circles (Bossuet, 1693). In the actual understanding of the book in its
literal sense no great progress was made. Solomon was still viewed as
the author, and for the most part the idea that the poem is a dramatic
epithalamium was borrowed from Origen and the allegorists, and applied
to the marriage of Pharaoh's daughter.
From Grotius to Lowth the idea of a typical reference designed by
Solomon himself appears as a mere excrescence on the natural
interpretation, but as an excrescence which could not be removed without
perilling the place of Canticles in the canon, which, indeed, was again
assailed by Whiston in 1723. But in his notes on Lowth's lectures, J.D.
Michaelis, who regarded the poem as a description of the enduring
happiness of true wedded love long after marriage, proposed to drop the
allegory altogether, and to rest the canonicity of the book, as of those
parts of Proverbs which treat of conjugal affection, on the moral
picture it presents (1758).
Then came Herder's exquisite little treatise on _Solomon's Songs of
Love, the Oldest and Sweetest of the East_ (1778). Herder, possessing
delicacy of taste and sympathetic poetical genius, delighted in the
Canticles as the transparently natural expression of innocent and tender
love. He expressed the idea that the poem is simply a sequence of
independent songs without inner unity, grouped so as to display various
phases and stages of love in a natural order, culminating in the placid
joys of wedded life. The theory of Herder, which refuses to acknowledge
any continuity in the book, was accepted by Eichhorn on the part of
scholars, and with some hesitation by Goethe on the part of the poets.
Commentaries based on this view are those of Dopke (1829), Magnus
(1842), Noyes (1846).
The prevalent view of the 19th century, however, recognizes in the poem
a more or less pronounced dramatic character, and following Jacobi
(1771) distinguishes the shepherd, the true love of the Shulamite, from
King Solomon, who is made to play an ignominious part. Propounded by
Staudlin (1792) and Ammon (1795), this view was energetically carried
out by Umbreit (1820), and above all by Ewald, whose acuteness gave the
theory a new development, while his commanding influence among Hebrew
scholars acquired for it general recognition. Ewald assumed a very
simple dramatic structure, and did not in his first publication (1826)
venture to suppose that the poem had ever been acted on a stage. His
less cautious followers have been generally tempted to dispose of
difficulties by introducing more complicated action and additional
interlocutors (so, for example, Hitzig, 1855; Ginsburg, 1857; Renan,
1860); while Bottcher (1850) did his best to reduce the dramatic
exposition to absurdity by introducing the complexities and stage
effects of a modern operetta. Another view is that of Delitzsch (1851
and 1875) and his followers, who also plead for a dramatic form--though
without supposing that the piece was ever acted--but adhere to the
traditional notion that Solomon is the author, who celebrates his love
to a peasant maiden, whom he made his wife, and in whose company the
proud monarch learned to appreciate the sweetness of a true affection
and a simple rustic life.
In view of the prevalence of the "dramatic" theory of Canticles during
the 19th century, and its retention by some comparatively recent writers
(Oettli, Driver, Adeney, Harper), it seems desirable that this theory
should be presented in some detail. A convenient summary of the form it
assumed in the hands of Ewald (the shepherd-hypothesis) and of Delitzsch
(the king-hypothesis) is given by Driver (_Literature of the Old
Testament_, ch. x. S 1). The following presentation of the theory, on
the general lines of Ewald, gives that form of it which Robertson Smith
was able to accept in 1876.
The centre of attraction is throughout a female figure, and the unity of
this figure is the chief test of the unity of the book. In the long
canto, i. 1-ii. 7, the heroine appears in a royal palace (i. 4) among the
daughters of Jerusalem, who are thus presumably ladies of the court of
Zion. At i. 9, an additional interlocutor is introduced, who is plainly a
king, and apparently Solomon (i. 9, 12). He has just risen from table,
and praises the charms of the heroine with the air of a judge of beauty,
but without warmth. He addresses her simply as "my friend" (not as
English version, "my love"). The heroine, on the contrary, is
passionately in love, but nothing can be plainer than that the object of
her affection is not the king. She is not at home in the palace, for she
explains (i. 6) that she has spent her life as a peasant girl in the care
of vineyards. Her beloved, whom she knows not where to find (i. 7), but
who lies constantly on her heart and is cherished in her bosom like a
spray of the sweet henna flowers which Oriental ladies delight to wear
(i. 13, 14), is like herself a peasant--a shepherd lad (i. 7)--with whom
she was wont to sit in the fresh greenwood under the mighty boughs of
the cedars (i. 16, 17). Even before the king's entrance the ladies of the
court are impatient at so silly an affection, and advise her, "if she is
really so witless," to begone and rejoin her plebeian lover (i. 8). To
them she appeals in ii. 5, 6, where her self-control, strung to the
highest pitch as she meets the compliments of the king with
reminiscences of her absent lover, breaks down in a fit of
half-delirious sickness. The only words directed to the king are those
of i. 12, which, if past tenses are substituted for the presents of the
English version, contain a pointed rebuff. Finally, ii. 7 is, on the
plainest translation, a charge not to arouse love till it please. The
moral of the scene is the spontaneity of true affection.
Now, at viii. 5, a female figure advances leaning upon her beloved, with
whom she claims inseparable union,--"for love is strong as death, its
passion inflexible as the grave, its fire a divine flame which no waters
can quench or floods drown. Yea, if a man would give all his wealth for
love he would only be contemned." This is obviously the sentiment of ii.
7, and the suitor, whose wealth is despised, must almost of necessity be
identified with the king of chapter i., if, as seems reasonable, we
place viii. ii, 12 in the mouth of the same speaker--"King Solomon has
vineyards which bring him a princely revenue, and enrich even the
farmers. Let him and them keep their wealth; my vineyard is before me"
(i.e. I possess it in present fruition). The last expression is plainly
to be connected with i. 6. But this happiness has not been reached
without a struggle. The speaker has proved herself an impregnable
fortress (ver. 10), and, armed only with her own beauty and innocence,
has been in his eyes as one that found peace. The sense is that, like a
virgin fortress, she has compelled her assailant to leave her in peace.
To these marks of identity with the heroine of ch. i. are to be added
that she appears here as dwelling in gardens, there as a keeper of
vineyards (i. 6, and viii. 13), and that as there it was her brethren
that prescribed her duties, so here she apparently quotes words in which
her brothers, while she was still a child, speculated as to her future
conduct and its reward (viii. 8, 9).
If this analysis of the commencement and close of the book is correct,
it is certain that the poem is in a sense dramatic, that is, that it
uses dialogue and monologue to develop a story. The heroine appears in
the opening scene in a difficult and painful situation, from which in
the last chapter she is happily extricated. But the dramatic progress
which the poem exhibits scarcely involves a plot in the usual sense of
that word. The words of viii. 9, 10 clearly indicate that the
deliverance of the heroine is due to no combination of favouring
circumstances, but to her own inflexible fidelity and virtue.
The constant direction of the maiden's mind to her true love is partly
expressed in dialogue with the ladies of the court (the daughters of
Jerusalem), who have no dramatic individuality, and whose only function
in the economy of the piece is to give the heroine opportunity for a
more varied expression of her feelings. In i. 8 we found them
contemptuous. In chapter iii. they appear to be still indifferent; for
when the heroine relates a dream in which the dull pain of separation
and the uneasy consciousness of confinement and danger in the
unsympathetic city disappear for a moment in imagined reunion with her
lover, they are either altogether silent or reply only by taking up a
festal part song describing the marriage procession of King Solomon
(iii. 6-11), which stands in jarring contrast to the feelings of the
maiden.[5] A second dream (v. 2-8), more weird and melancholy, and
constructed with that singular psychological felicity which
characterizes the dreams of the Old Testament, gains more sympathy, and
the heroine is encouraged to describe her beloved at large (v. 10-vi.
3). The structure of these dialogues is so simple, and their purpose is
so strictly limited to the exhibition of the character and affection of
the maiden, that it is only natural to find them supplemented by a free
use of pure monologue, in which the heroine recalls the happiness of
past days, or expresses her rising hope of reunion with her shepherd,
and restoration to the simple joys of her rustic life. The vivid
reminiscence of ii. 8-17 takes the form of a dialogue within the main
dialogue of the poem, a picture within a picture--the picture of her
beloved as he stood at her window in the early spring time, and of her
own merry heart as she laughingly answered him in the song with which
watchers of the vineyards frighten away the foxes. It is, of course, a
fault of perspective that this reminiscence is as sharp in outline and
as strong in colour as the main action. But no one can expect
perspective in such early art, and recollection of the past is clearly
enough separated from present reality by ii. 16, 17. The last monologue
(vii. 10-viii. 3), in which the hope of immediate return with her lover
is tempered by maidenly shame, and a maiden's desire for her mother's
counsel, is of special value for a right appreciation of the psychology
of the love which the poem celebrates, and completes a picture of this
flower of the northern valleys which is not only firm in outline, but
delicate in touch. The subordinate action which supports the portraiture
of the maiden of Galilee is by no means easy to understand.
We come next to chapter vi., which again sings the praises of the
heroine, and takes occasion in this connexion to introduce, with the
same want of perspective as we observed in ch. ii., a dialogue
descriptive of Solomon's first meeting with the maiden. We learn that
she was an inhabitant of Shulem or Shunem in Issachar, whom the king and
his train surprised in a garden on the occasion of a royal progress
through the north. Her beauty drew from the ladies of the court a cry of
admiration. The maiden shrinks back with the reply--"I was gone down
into my garden to see its growth.... I know not how my soul hath brought
me among the chariots of princes"; but she is commanded to turn and let
herself be seen in spite of her bashful protest--"Why do ye gaze on the
Shulamite as at a dance of Mahanaim (a spectacle)?" Now the person in
whose mouth this relation is placed must be an eye-witness of the scene,
and so none other than the king. But in spite of the verbal repetition
of several of the figures of ch. iv.... the tone in which the king now
addresses the Shulamite is quite changed. She is not only beautiful but
terrible, her eyes trouble him, and he cannot endure their gaze. She is
unique among women, the choice and only one of her mother. The unity of
action can only be maintained by ignoring vii. 1-9, and taking the words
of Solomon in chapter vi. in their obvious sense as implying that the
king at length recognizes in the maiden qualities of soul unknown in the
harem, a character which compels respect, as well as a beauty that
inflames desire. The change of feeling which was wrought in the
daughters of Jerusalem in the previous scene now extends to Solomon
himself, and thus the glad utterances of vii. 10, seq., have a
sufficient motive, and the _denouement_ is no longer violent and
unprepared.
The _nodus_ of the action is fully given in chapter i., the final issue
in chapter viii. The solution lies entirely in the character and
constancy of the heroine, which prevail, in the simplest possible way,
first over the ladies of the court and then over the king.
The attractiveness of the above theory cannot be denied; but it may be
asked whether the attraction does not lie in the appeal to modern taste
of a story which is largely the product of modern imagination. It
supposes a freedom of intercourse between lovers inconceivable for the
East. The initial situation of the maiden in the harem of Solomon is
left as a problem for the reader to discover, until he comes to its
supposed origin in vi. 11; the expedient might be granted in the case of
one of Browning's _Men and Women_, but seems very improbable in the
present case. The more elaborate dramatic theories can find no parallel
in Semitic literature to the "drama" of Canticles, the book of Job being
no exception to this statement; whilst even the simpler theories ask us
to believe that the essential parts of the story--the rape of the
Shulamite, the change in Solomon's disposition, her release from the
harem--are to be supplied by the reader from obscure and disputable
references. More serious still is the fact that any progress of action
from first to last is so difficult to prove. In the first chapter we
listen to a woman speaker desiring to be kissed by the man who has
brought her into his chambers, and speaking of "our bed"; in the last we
leave her "leaning upon her beloved." The difficulties of detail are
equally great. To suppose that all the male love-making, by hypothesis
unsuccessful, belongs to Solomon, whilst the heroine addresses her
passionate words to the continuously absent shepherd, is obviously
unconvincing; yet, if this shepherd speaks in iv. 8-v. 1, how are we to
explain his appearance in the royal harem? This and other difficulties
were acknowledged by Robertson Smith, notably the presence of vii. 1-9,
which he proposed to set aside as an interpolation, because of its
sensuality and of the difficulty of working it into the dramatic scheme.
The fact that this passage has subsequently become the central element
in the new interpretation of the book is, perhaps, a warning against
violent measures with difficulties.
Attention has already been drawn to Herder's proposal, accepted by some
later writers, including Diestel and Reuss, to regard the book as a
collection of detached songs. This received new and striking
confirmation from the anthropological data supplied by J.G. Wetstein
(1873), Prussian consul at Damascus. His observations of the wedding
customs of Syrian peasants led him to believe that Canticles is
substantially a collection of songs originally sung at such festivities.
Wetstein's contribution was republished shortly afterwards by Delitzsch,
in an appendix to his _Commentary_; but it received little attention.
The first amongst Old Testament scholars to perceive its importance
seems to have been Stade, who accepted Wetstein's view in a footnote to
his _History of the Jewish People_ (ii. p. 197), published in 1888; to
Budde, however, belongs the distinction of the systematic and detailed
use of Wetstein's suggestions, especially in his _Commentary_ (1898).
This interpretation of the book is accepted by Kautzsch (1896),
Siegfried (1898), Cheyne (1899), and other eminent scholars. The
last-named states the theory tersely as follows: "The book is an
anthology of songs used at marriage festivals in or near Jerusalem,
revised and loosely connected by an editor without regard to temporal
sequence" (_Ency. Bibl._ 691). The character of the evidence which has
contributed to the acceptance of this view may be indicated in
Wetstein's own statements:--
"The finest time in the life of the Syrian peasant consists of the
first seven days after his wedding, in which he and his young wife
play the part of king (_melik_) and queen (_melika_), both being so
treated and served by their village and the invited communities of the
neighbourhood. The majority of the greater village weddings fall in
the month of March, the finest of the Syrian year. The winter rains
being over, and the sun still refreshing, not oppressive as in the
following months, the weddings are celebrated in the open air on the
village threshing-floor, which at this time of the year is with few
exceptions a flowery mead. ...We pass over the wedding-day itself with
its displays, the sword-dance of the bride, and the great feast. On
the morrow, bridegroom and bride awake as king and queen. Already
before sunrise they receive the leader of the bridesmen, as their
vizier, and the bridesmen themselves; the latter thereupon fetch the
threshing-board and bring it to the threshing-floor, singing a rousing
song of battle or love, generally both. There it is erected as a
throne, and after the royal couple have taken their seats and the
necessary formalities are gone through, a great dance in honour of the
young couple begins; the accompanying song is concerned only with
themselves, its principal element being the inevitable _wasf_, i.e. a
description of the physical perfections of both and their ornaments.
The eulogy of the queen is more moderate, and praises her visible,
rather than veiled, charms; this is due to the fact that she is to-day
a married woman, and that the _wasf_ sung on the previous day during
her sword-dance has left nothing to desire. This _wasf_ is the weak
element in Syrian wedding-songs according to our taste; its
comparisons are to us frequently too clumsy and reveal the stereotyped
pattern. It is the same with the little collection of charming
wedding-songs and fragments of them which has been received into the
canon of the Old Testament under the name of Canticles; the _wasf_
(iv.--vii.) is considerably below the rest in poetical value. With
this dance begin the sports, lasting seven days, begun in the morning
on the first, shortly before midday on the other days, and continuing
far into the night by the light of the fires that are kindled; on the
last day alone all is over by sunset. During the whole week both
royalties are in marriage attire, must do no work and have no cares;
they have only to look down from the _merteba_ (throne) on the sports
carried on before them, in which they themselves take but a moderate
part; the queen, however, occasionally gives a short dance to attract
attention to her bridal attire."[6]
For the general application of these and the related customs to the
interpretation of the book, reference should be made to Budde's
_Commentary_, which recognizes four _wasfs_, viz. iv. 1-7 (describing
the bride from head to breasts), v. 10-16 (the bridegroom), vi. 4-7
(similar to and partly repeating iv. 1-7), and vii. 1-9, belonging to
the sword-dance of the bride, her physical charms being sung from feet
to head (cf. vii. 1; "Why look ye on the Shulamite as (on) a dance of
camps?" i.e. a war-dance). This dance receives its name from the fact
that she dances it with a sword in her hand in the firelight on the
evening of her wedding-day, and amid a circle of men and women, whilst
such a _wasf_ as this is sung by the leader of the choir. The passage
relating to the litter of Solomon (iii. 6-11)--an old difficulty with
the dramatizers--relates to the erection of the throne on the
threshing-floor.[7] The terms "Solomon" and "the Shulamite" are
explained as figurative references to the famous king, and to Abishag
the Shulamite, "fairest among women," on the lines of the use of "king"
and "queen" noted above. Other songs of Canticles are referred by Budde
to the seven days of festivities. It need hardly be said that
difficulties still remain in the analysis of this book of wedding-songs;
whilst Budde detects 23 songs, besides fragments, Siegfried divides the
book into 10.[8] Such differences are to be expected in the case of a
collection of songs, some admittedly in dialogue form, all concerned
with the common theme of the love of man and woman, and without any
external indication of the transition from one song to the next.
Further, we must ask whether the task has been complicated by any
editorial rearrangement or interpolation; the collector of these songs
has certainly not reproduced them in the order of their use at Syrian
weddings. Can we trace any principle, or even any dominant thought in
this arrangement? In this connexion we touch the reason for the
reluctance of some scholars to accept the above interpretation, viz. the
alleged marks of literary unity which the book contains (e.g. Driver,
_loc. cit._). These are (1) general similarity of treatment, seen in the
use of imagery (the bride as a garden, iv. 12; vi. 2, 3), the frequent
references to nature and to particular places, and the recurrence of
descriptions of male and female beauty; (2) references to "Solomon" or
"the king," to "the Shulamite" and to "the daughters of Jerusalem" (from
which, indeed, the dramatic theory has found its chief inspiration); (3)
indications that the same person is speaking in different places (cf.
the two dreams of a woman, and the vineyard references, i. 6; viii. 12);
(4) repetitions of words and phrases especially of the refrains,
"disturb not love" (ii. 7; iii. 5; viii. 4), and "until the day break"
(ii. 17; iv. 6). But of these (1) is no more than should be expected,
since the songs all relate to the same subject, and spring from a common
world of life and thought of the same group of people; (2) finds at
least a partial parallel and explanation in the use of "king" and
"queen" noted above; whilst (3) and (4) alone seem to require something
more than the work of a mere collector of the songs. It is, of course,
true that, in recurrent ceremonies, the same thought inevitably tends to
find expression in the same words. But this hardly meets the case of the
refrains, whilst the reference to the vineyard at beginning and end does
suggest some literary connexion. It is to be noted that the three
refrains "disturb not love" severally follow passages relating to the
consummation of the sexual relation, whilst the two refrains "until the
day break" appear to form an invitation and an answer in the same
connexion, whilst the "Omnia vincit Amor" passage in the last chapter
forms a natural climax (cf. Haupt's translation). So far, then, as this
somewhat scanty evidence goes, it may point to some one hand which has
given its semblance of unity to the book by underlining the joy of
consummated love--to which the vineyard and garden figures throughout
allude--and by so arranging the collection that the descriptions of this
joy find their climax in viii. 6-7.[9]
Whatever conclusion, however, may be reached as to the present
_arrangement_ of Canticles, the recognition of wedding-songs as forming
its nucleus marks an important stage in the interpretation of the book;
even Rothstein (1902), whilst attempting to resuscitate a dramatic
theory, "recognizes ... the possibility that older wedding-songs (as,
for instance, the _wasfs_) are worked up in the Song of Songs"
(Hastings' _D.B._ p. 594b). The drama he endeavours to construct might,
indeed, be called "The Tokens of Virginity," since he makes it culminate
in the procedure of Deut. xxii. 13 f., which still forms part of the
Syrian ceremonies. But his reconstruction is open to the same objection
as all similar attempts, in that the vital moments of the dramatic
action have to be supplied from without. Thus between v. 1 and v. 2, the
baffled king is supposed to have disappeared, and to have been replaced
by the happy lover; between viii. 7 and viii. 8, we are required to
imagine "the bridal night and its mysteries"; whilst between viii. 9 and
viii. 10, we must suppose the evidence that the bride has been found a
virgin is exhibited. He also attempts, with considerable ingenuity, to
trace the legend involved in the supposed drama to the fact that Abishag
remained a virgin in regard to David (1 Kings i. 4) whilst nothing is
said of her marriage to Solomon.[10]
On the view accepted above, Canticles describes in a number of separate
poems the central passion of human life, and is wholly without didactic
tendencies. Of its earliest history as a book we have no information. It
is already included in the Hebrew canon (though its right to be there is
disputed) when the first explicit mention of the book occurs. We have no
evidence, therefore, of the theory of interpretation prevalent at the
time of its incorporation with the other books of the canon. It seems,
however, fair to infer that it would hardly have found acceptance but
for a Solomonic theory of authorship and a "religious" theory of
meaning. The problem raised by its present place in the canon occurs in
relation to mistaken Jewish theories about other books also; it
suggests, at least, that divine inspiration may belong to the life of a
people rather than to the letter of their literature. Of that life
Canticles portrays a central element--the passion of love--in striking
imagery and graceful language, however far its oriental standard of
taste differs from that of the modern West.
From the nature of the book, it is impossible to assign a precise date
for its origin; the wedding-songs of which it chiefly consists must
belong to the folklore of more than one century. The only evidence we
possess as to date is drawn from the character of the Hebrew in which
the book is written, which shows frequent points of contact with new
Hebrew.[11] On this ground, we may suppose the present form of the work
to date from the Greek period, i.e. after 332 B.C. This is the date
accepted by most recent writers, e.g. Kautzsch, Cheyne, Budde,
Rothstein, Jacob, Haupt. This late date finds some confirmation in the
fact that Canticles belongs to the third and latest part of the Old
Testament canon, and that its canonicity was still in dispute at the end
of the 1st century A.D. The evidence offered for a north Israelite
origin, on the ground of linguistic parallels and topographical
familiarity (Driver, _loc. cit._), does not seem very convincing; Haupt,
however, places the compilation of the book in the neighbourhood of
Damascus.
LITERATURE.--Most of the older books of importance are named above;
Ginsburg, _The Song of Songs_ (1857), gives much information as to the
history of the exegesis of Canticles; Diestel's article, "Hohes Lied,"
in Schenkel's _Bibel Lexikon_ (1871), reviews well the history of
interpretation prior to Wetstein; cf. also Riedel, _Die Auslegung des
Hohenliedes in der judischen Gemeinde und der griechischen Kirche_
(1898). The most important commentary is that by Budde, in Marti's
_Kurzer Hand-Commentar (Die funf Megilloth)_ (1898), where references
to the literature of the 19th century are given. To his list add
Siegfried, "Prediger und Hoheslied," in Nowack's _Handkommentar_
(1898); Cheyne's article "Canticles," in the _Encyclopaedia Biblica_
(1899); Dalman, _Palastinischer Diwan_ (1901), parallels to the songs;
Rothstein's article, "Song of Songs," in Hastings' _Dictionary of the
Bible_ (1902); G. Jacob, _Das Hohelied auf Grund arabischer und
anderer Parallelen von neuem Untersucht_ (1902); A. Harper, _The Song
of Songs_ (1902); Haupt, "The Book of Canticles," in _The American
Journal of Semitic Languages_ (July 1902); Scholz, _Kommentar uber das
Hohelied und Psalm 45_ (1904) (written from the Roman Catholic
dogmatic standpoint of allegorical interpretation, with a vigorous
criticism of other positions). No commentator in English, except
Haupt, in the article named above, has yet worked on the lines of the
above anthology theory. Haupt gives valuable notes, with a translation
and rearrangement of the separate songs. (W. R. S.; H. W. R.*)