It is almost startling to find, on consulting a Concordance of the Old
and New Testaments, that in the whole of the Bible there is not a single
reference to Romantic Love. Had this sentiment existed among the ancient
Hebrews as it does among their descendants to-day, it is obvious that it
could not possibly have been ignored in the Book of Books, which so
eloquently and poetically discourses of everything else that is of vital
interest to man. Conjugal Love (which apparently antedates Romantic Love
in every nation) is indeed repeatedly referred to and enjoined, as well
as the other family affections; but in the remaining cases the word Love
is always used in the sense of religious veneration, or of regard for a
neighbour or an enemy.
This absence of any reference to Romantic Love is all the more
surprising in view of the fact that among the ancient Hebrews woman was
held more in honour than with any other Oriental nation, ancient or
modern. Thus we are told in M‘Clintock and Strong’s _Cyclopædia of
Biblical etc. Literature_, that “the seclusion of the harem and the
habits consequent upon it were utterly unknown in early times, and the
condition of the Oriental woman, as pictured to us in the Bible,
contrasts most favourably with that of her modern representative. There
is abundant evidence that women, whether married or unmarried, went
about with their faces unveiled. An unmarried woman might meet and
converse with men, even strangers, in a public place; she might be found
alone in the country without any reflection on her character; or she
might appear in a court of justice.” The wife “entertained guests at her
own desire in the absence of her husband, and sometimes even in defiance
of his wishes.”
Since, therefore, the Hebrew woman was not “the husband’s slave but his
companion,” how are we to account for the absence of Love?
Some light is thrown on the matter by the prevalence of polygamy, which,
as we have seen, is inimical to the growth of Love. Polygamy, though not
universal, was sanctioned by the Mosaic law, except in the case of
priests. “The secondary wife was regarded by the Hebrews as a wife, and
her rights were secured by law.” In the cases of Abraham and Jacob,
polygamy was resorted to at the request of their own wives, “under the
idea that children born to a slave were in the eye of the law the
children of the mistress.” Now if a woman advises her own husband to
take another wife, there must be a total absence of Jealousy and
Monopoly—the two elements of Romantic Love which pass into conjugal
affection without diminution of force.
Again, although Hebrew women are said to have had considerable liberty
of going about alone in town and country, this probably refers in most
cases to the privilege of tending sheep and of fetching water at the
well. “From all education in general,” says Ploss, “as well as _from
social intercourse with men, woman was excluded_; her destination being
simply to increase the number of children, and take care of household
matters. She lived a quiet life, merely for her husband, who, indeed,
treated her with respect and consideration, but without feeling any
special tenderness toward her.”
It is the line which I have italicised in the above quotation that
suggests the principal reason of the non-existence of Love in Biblical
times: There were no meetings of the young, no opportunities for
Courtship, the indispensable condition of Love, which requires time and
opportunity for its growth. And not only were there no regular
opportunities for Courtship, but if they offered themselves casually,
the young folks could not derive much benefit, from them; for not only
the daughter’s choice, but even the son’s was neutralised by the
parental command. “Fathers from the beginning considered it both their
duty and prerogative to find or select wives _for their sons_ (Gen.
xxiv. 3; xxxviii. 6). In the absence of the father, the selection
devolved upon the mother (Gen. xxi. 21). Even in cases where the wishes
of the son were consulted, the proposals were made by the father (Gen.
xxxiv. 4, 8); and the violation of this parental prerogative on the part
of the son was ‘a grief of mind’ to the father (Gen. xxvi. 35). The
proposals were generally made by the parents of the young man, except
when there was a difference of rank, in which case the negotiations
proceeded from the father of the maiden (Exod. ii. 21), and when
accepted by the parents on both sides, sometimes also consulting the
opinion of the adult brothers of the maiden (Gen. xxiv. 51; xxxiv. 11),
the matter was considered as settled, _without requiring the consent of
the bride_” (M‘Clintock and Strong).
But how about the Song of Solomon—the Song of Songs? Is not that a song
of Love, and an exception to our general statement? It appears so at
first sight; and the German writer Herder, in his detailed and glowing
analysis of it, declares that it depicts love “from its first origin,
from its tenderest bud, through all stages and conditions of its growth,
its flowering, its maturing, to the ripe fruit and new offshoot.”
Herder, however, is a very unsafe and shallow guide in this matter. An
attempt has lately been made to rehabilitate him in Germany, where his
fame has become almost extinct; but in vain, for his pompous, stilted
rhetoric and imagery cannot conceal from modern readers his lack of
ideas and limited knowledge of facts. He asserts that, as there is only
one Goodness, one Truth, so there is but one Love (or Affection). If you
do not love your wife, he says, you will not love your friend, parents,
or child. A writer whose notions of the psychology of love are so
excessively crude cannot be considered a trustworthy judge in the matter
in question. So far as love is referred to in the Song of Solomon, it is
probable that conjugal affection is meant.
It is a curious fact that of the famous German, English, and French
theologians who have written commentaries on the Song of Songs, no two
seem to agree in their interpretation of its plot and significance. It
is now generally agreed, too, that the Song was not written by Solomon,
but some time after him. It seems, indeed, incredible that a monarch who
had a thousand wives, and whose affections must have been torn into a
thousand shreds, and cannot have been very lasting, should have written
these marvellous lines: “For love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel
as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most
vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods
drown it: if a man should give all the substance of his house for love,
it would utterly be contemned.”
This passage has a remarkably modern and romantic sound—so modern and
romantic that it would not seem out of place in Shakspere. But it needs
no knowledge of Hebrew to see that the responsibility for this modern
sound rests with the English translators. Luther’s more literal version
appears much less modern. Indeed, throughout the Song of Solomon the
English translators have idealised the language of passion, in harmony
with modern notions on the subject; so that it is only on reading
Luther’s version that one begins to understand why the Talmudists did
not allow the Jews to read this book before their thirtieth year.
Perhaps the most ingenious and consistent of the numerous
interpretations of the Song of Solomon is that given by M. Chas. Bruston
in the _Encyclopædie des Sciences Religieuses_ (ii. 610-612). The
repetition of the flatteries occurring in the poem he explains by
showing that the second time they refer, not to the Sulamite, but to a
princess of Lebanon whom Solomon married. Hence, he insists, the
repetition is not so much a literary blemish as an indication “combien
est vil et méprisable l’amour sensuel et polygame, qui prodigue
indifférement les mêmes flatteries a des femmes différentes.”
The imaginative and poetic terms in which feminine charms are depicted
in the Song of Songs show that, nevertheless, at least the sensuous
phase of the overtone of Personal Admiration was strongly developed
among the ancient Hebrews; not strongly enough, however, to lead them,
as it led other ancient nations, to embody their ideals of feminine and
masculine beauty in marble monuments of sculpture.