SOURCE: "Commentary: Prologue," in "The Song of Songs": Commentary and Homilies, translated by R. P. Lawson, The Newman Press, 1957, pp. 21-57.

[In the following prologue to his commentary, written in 240, Origen ascribes the Song of Songs to Solomon, noting the importance of a cautious distinction between "passionate love" and "charity" to an interpretation of the dramatic poem's "secret metaphors."]

1. The Song of Songs a Drama of Mystical Meaning

It seems to me that this little book is an epithalamium, that is to say, a marriage-song, which Solomon wrote in the form of a drama and sang under the figure of the Bride, about to wed and burning with heavenly love towards her Bridegroom, who is the Word of God. And deeply indeed did she love Him, whether we take her as the soul made in His image, or as the Church. But this same Scripture also teaches us what words this august and perfect Bridegroom used in speaking to the soul, or to the Church, who has been joined to Him. And in this same little book that bears the title Song of Songs, we recognize moreover things that the Bride's companions said, the maidens who go with her, and also some things spoken by the Bridegroom's friends and fellows. For the friends of the Bridegroom also, in their joy at His union with the Bride, have been enabled to say some things—at any rate those that they had heard from the Bridegroom Himself. In the same way we find the Bride speaking not to the Bridegroom only, but also to the maidens; likewise the Bridegroom's words are addressed not to the Bride alone, but also to His friends. And that is what we meant just now, when we said that the marriage-song was written in dramatic form. For we call a thing a drama, such as the enaction of a story on the stage, when different characters are introduced and the whole structure of the narrative consists in their comings and goings among themselves. And this work contains these things one by one in their own order, and also the whole body of it consists of mystical utterances.

But it behoves us primarily to understand that, just as in childhood we are not affected by the passion of love, so also to those who are at the stage of infancy and childhood in their interior life—to those, that is to say, who are being nourished with milk in Christ, not with strong meat, and are only beginning to desire the rational milk without guile—it is not given to grasp the meaning of these sayings. For in the words of the Song of Songs there is that food, of which the Apostle says that strong meat is for the perfect; and that food calls for hearers who by ability have their senses exercised to the discerning of good and evil. And indeed, if those whom we have called children were to come on these passages, it may be that they would derive neither profit nor much harm, either from reading the text itself, or from going through the necessary explanations. But if any man who lives only after the flesh should approach it, to such a one the reading of this Scripture will be the occasion of no small hazard and danger. For he, not knowing how to hear love's language in purity and with chaste ears, will twist the whole manner of his hearing of it away from the inner spiritual man and on to the outward and carnal; and he will be turned away from the spirit to the flesh, and will foster carnal desires in himself, and it will seem to be the Divine Scriptures that are thus urging and egging him on to fleshly lust!

For this reason, therefore, I advise and counsel everyone who is not yet rid of the vexations of flesh and blood and has not ceased to feel the passion of his bodily nature, to refrain completely from reading this little book and the things that will be said about it. For they say that with the Hebrews also care is taken to allow no one even to hold this book in his hands, who has not reached a full and ripe age. And there is another practice too that we have received from them—namely, that all the Scriptures should be delivered to boys by teachers and wise men, while at the same time the four that they call deuteroseis—that is to say, the beginning of Genesis, in which the creation of the world is described; the first chapters of Ezechiel, which tell about the cherubim; the end of that same, which contains the building of the Temple; and this book of the Song of Songs—should be reserved for study till the last.

2. The Theme of the Song of Songs

Before we come to consider the things that are written in this book, therefore, it seems to me necessary to say a few things first about love itself, which is the main theme of this Scripture; then about the order of the books of Solomon, among which we find that this one is put third; then about the name of the book itself, why it is entitled the Song of Songs; and, lastly, for what apparent reason it s written in dramatic form and, like a story that is acted on the stage, with dialogue between the characters.

Among the Greeks, indeed, many of the sages, desiring to pursue the search for truth in regard to the nature of love, produced a great variety of writings in this dialogue form, the object of which was to show that the power of love is none other than that which leads the soul from earth to the lofty heights of heaven, and that the higher beatitude can only be attained under the stimulus of love's desire. Moreover, the disputations on this subject are represented as taking place at meals, between persons whose banquet, I think, consists of words and not of meats. And others also have left us written accounts of certain arts, by which this love might be generated and augmented in the soul. But carnal men have perverted these arts to foster vicious longings and the secrets of sinful love.

You must not be surprised, therefore, if we call the discussion of the nature of love difficult and likely to be dangerous also for ourselves, among whom there are as many inexperienced folk as there are people of the simpler sort; seeing that even among the Greeks, who seem so wise and learned, there have none the less been some who did not understand what was said about love in the sense in which it was written, but took occasion from it to rush into carnal sins and down the steep places of immodesty, either by taking some suggestions and recommendations out of what had been written, as we said above, or else by using what the ancients wrote as a cloak for their own lack of self-control.

Lest, therefore, the like should happen to us, and we too should interpret in a vicious and carnal sense the things the ancients wrote with good and spiritual intent, let us stretch out our hands, alike of body and soul, to God; that the Lord, who gave the word to them that preach good tidings with great power, may by His power bestow the word also on us; so that we, out of these things that have been written, may be able to make clear a wholesome meaning in regard to the name and the nature of love, and one that is apt for the building up of chastity.

In the beginning of the words of Moses, where the creation of the world is described, we find reference to the making of two men, the first in the image and likeness of God, and the second formed of the slime of the earth. Paul the Apostle knew this well; and, being possessed of a very clear understanding of the matter, he wrote in his letters more plainly and with greater lucidity that there are in fact two men in every single man. He says, for instance: For if our outward man is corrupted, yet the inward man is renewed day by day; and again: For I am delighted with the law of God according to the inward man; and he makes some other statements of a similar kind. I think, therefore, that no one ought any longer to doubt what Moses wrote in the beginning of Genesis about the making and fashioning of two men, since he sees Paul, who understood what Moses wrote much better than we do, saying that there are two men in every one of us. Of these two men he tells us that the one, namely, the inner man, is renewed from day to day; but the other, that is, the outer, he declares to be corrupted and weakened in all the saints and in such as he was himself. If anything in regard to this matter still seems doubtful to anyone, it will be better explained in the appropriate places. But let us now follow up what we mentioned before about the inner and the outer man.

The thing we want to demonstrate about these things is that the Divine Scriptures make use of homonyms; that is to say, they use identical terms for describing different things. And they even go so far as to call the members of the outer man by the same names as the parts and dispositions of the inner man; and not only are the same terms employed, but the things themselves are compared with one another. For instance, a person is a child in age according to the inner man, who has in him the power to grow and to be led onward to the age of youth, and thence by successive stages of development to come to the perfect man and to be made a father. Our own intention, therefore, has been to use such terms as would be in harmony with the language of Sacred Scripture, and in particular with that which was written by John; for he says: I have written to you, children, because you have known the Father; I have written to you, fathers, because you have known Him who was from the beginning; I have written unto you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and you have overcome the wicked one. It is perfectly clear; and I think nobody should doubt that John calls these people children or lads or young men or even fathers according to the soul's age, not the body's. Paul too says somewhere: I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto little ones in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not meat. A little one in Christ is undoubtedly so called after the age of his soul, not after that of his flesh. And finally the same Paul says further: When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but, when I became a man, I destroyed childish things. And again on another occasion he says: Until we all meet… unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ: he knows that those who believe will all meet unto a perfect man and unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.

So, then, just as these different ages that we have mentioned are denoted by the same words both for the outer man and for the inner, so also will you find the names of the members of the body transferred to those of the soul; or rather the faculties and powers of the soul are to be called its members. We read in Ecclesiastes, therefore: The eyes of a wise man are in his head; and again in the Gospel: He that hath ears to hear, let him hear; and in the prophets likewise: The word of the Lord that was made in the hand of Jeremias the prophet, or whoever it happens to be. The passage that says: Let not thy foot stumble, is another instance of the same; so also is: But my feet were moved a little less. The womb of the soul also is plainly designated where we read: Lord, from fear of Thee we have conceived in our womb. So likewise who is puzzled when it is said that their throat is an open sepulchre, and again: Cast down, O Lord, and divide their tongues, and also when it is written: Thou hast broken the teeth of sinners, and again: Break Thou the arm of the sinner and of the malignant?

But what need is there for me to collect more examples of these things, when the Divine Scriptures are full of any number of evidences? It is perfectly clear that in these passages the names of the members can in no way be applied to the visible body, but must be referred to the parts and powers of the invisible soul. The members have the same names, yes; but the names plainly and without any ambiguity carry meanings proper to the inner, not the outer man. Moreover, this material man, who also is called the outer, has food and drink of like sort with himself—that is to say, corporeal and earthly; but in the same way the spiritual man, who also is called the inner, has for his proper food that living Bread which came down from heaven, and drinks of the water that Jesus promises, saying: Whosoever shall drink of this water, which I will give to him, shall not thirst for ever.

The same terms, then, are used throughout for either man; but the essential character of the things is kept distinct, and corruptible things are offered to that which is corruptible, while incorruptible things are set before that which cannot be corrupted. It happens in consequence that certain people of the simpler sort, not knowing how to distinguish and differentiate between the things ascribed in the Divine Scriptures to the inner and outer man respectively, and being deceived by this identity of nomenclature, have applied themselves to certain absurd fables and silly tales. Thus they even believe that after the resurrection bodily food and drink will be used and taken—food, that is, not only from that True Vine who lives for ever, but also from the vines and fruits of the trees about us. But concerning these we shall see elsewhere.

Now then, as the foregoing remarks have shown, one person is childless and barren according to the inner man while another has plenty of offspring. And we notice that the saying: The barren hath borne seven, and she that hath many children is weakened, is in accord with this; as also is that which is said in the blessings: There shall not be one among you that is childless or barren. This being so, it follows that, just as there is one love, known as carnal and also known as Cupid by the poets, according to which the lover sows in the flesh; so also is there another, a spiritual love, by which the inner man who loves sows in the spirit. And, to speak more plainly, if anyone still bears the image of the earthy according to the outer man, then he is moved by earthly desire and love; but the desire and love of him who bears the image of the heavenly according to the inner man are heavenly. And the soul is moved by heavenly love and longing when, having clearly beheld the beauty and the fairness of the Word of God, it falls deeply in love with His loveliness and receives from the Word Himself a certain dart and wound of love. For this Word is the image and splendour of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation, in whom were all things created that are in heaven and on earth, seen and unseen alike. If, then, a man can so extend his thinking as to ponder and consider the beauty and the grace of all the things that have been created in the Word, the very charm of them will so smite him, the grandeur of their brightness will so pierce him as with a chosen dart—as says the prophet—that he will suffer from the dart Himself a saving wound, and will be kindled with the blessed fire of His love.

We must realize also that, just as an illicit and unlawful love may happen to the outer man—as that, for instance, he should love a harlot or adulteress instead of his bride or his wife; so also may the inner man, that is to say, the soul, come to attach its love not to its lawful Bridegroom, who is the Word of God, but to some seducer or adulterer. The prophet Ezechiel plainly states this fact under the same figure, when he brings in Oolla and Ooliba to represent Samaria and Jerusalem corrupted by adulterous love; the actual passage in the prophetic scripture declares this plainly to those who desire a deeper understanding of it. And this spiritual love of the soul does flame out, as we have taught, sometimes towards certain spirits of evil, and sometimes towards the Holy Spirit and the Word of God, who is called the faithful Spouse and Husband of the instructed soul, and from whom indeed the Bride derives her title, particularly in this piece of Scripture with which we are now dealing; this, with the Lord's help, we shall explain more fully when we come to expound the actual words of the book.

It seems to me, however, that the Divine Scripture is anxious to avoid the danger of the mention of love becoming an occasion of falling for its readers; and, to that end and for the sake of the weaker ones, it uses a more respectable word for that which the wise men of the world called desire or passion—namely, charity or affection. For instance, it says of Isaac: and he took Rebecca and she became his wife, and he loved (dilexit) her; and again the Scripture speaks in the same way about Jacob and Rachel: But Rachel had beautiful eyes and was fair of face, and Jacob loved (dilexit) Rachel and said, 'I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.' And the unchanged force of this word appears even more plainly in connection with Amnon, who had a passion for (adamavit) his sister Thamar; for it is written: And it came to pass after this that Absalom the son of David had a sister who was very fair of face, and her name was Thamar, and Amnon the son of David loved (dilexit) her. The writer has put 'loved' here in place of 'had a passion for.' And Amnon, he says, was so troubled that he fell sick because of Thamar his sister, for she was a virgin, and Amnon thought it a serious thing to do anything to her. And a little later, with reference to the outrage that Amnon did to Thamar his sister, the Scripture says thus: And Amnon would not listen to what she said, but overpowered her and humbled her and slept with her. And Amnon hated her with an exceeding great hatred, for the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love (dilectio) with which he had loved (dilexerat) her.

In these places, therefore, and in many others you will find that Divine Scripture avoided the word 'passion' and Put 'charity' or 'affection' instead. Occasionally, however, though rarely, it calls the passion of love by its own name, and invites and urges souls to it; as when it says in Proverbs about Wisdom: Desire her greatly (adama) and she shall preserve thee; encompass her, and she shall exalt thee; honour her, that she may embrace thee. And in the book that is called the Wisdom of Solomon it is written of Wisdom herself: I became a passionate lover (amator) of her beauty. I think that the word for passionate love was used only where there seemed to be no occasion of falling. For who could see anything sensuous or unseemly in the passion for Wisdom, or in a man's professing himself her passionate lover? Whereas had Isaac been spoken of as having a passion for Rebecca or Jacob for Rachel, some unseemly passion on the part of the saints of God might have been inferred from the words, especially by those who do not know how to rise up from the letter to the spirit. Most clearly, however, even in this our little book of which we are now treating, the appellation of 'passionate love' has been changed into the word 'charity' in the place where it says: I have adjured you, O daughters of Jerusalem, if you find my Nephew, to tell Him that I have been wounded by charity. For that is as much as to say: 'I have been smitten through with the dart of His "passionate love."'

It makes no difference, therefore, whether the Sacred Scriptures speak of love, or of charity, or of affection; except that the word 'charity' is so highly exalted that even God Himself is called Charity, as John says: Dearly beloved, let us love one another, for charity is of God; and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God; but he that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is Charity. And although some other time might be more suitable in which to say something about these words that, by way of example, we have cited from John's Epistle, it seems not unreasonable to touch briefly on the matter in this context too. Let us love one another, he says, for charity is of God; and a little later: God is Charity. In saying this, he shows both that God Himself is Charity, and that He who is of God also is Charity. For who is of God, save He who says: I came forth from God and am come into this world? If God the Father is Charity, and the Son is Charity, the Charity, that Each One is, is one; it follows, therefore, that the Father and the Son are one and the same in every respect. Fittingly, then, is Christ called Charity, just as He is called Wisdom and Power end Justice and Word and Truth. And that is why the Scripture says that if charity abideth in you, God abideth in you—God, that is to say, the Father and the Son, who also come to him who has been perfected in charity, according to the saying of Our Lord and Saviour: I and my Father will come to him and will make our abode with him.

We must understand, therefore, that this Charity, which God is, in whomsoever it exists loves nothing earthly, nothing material, nothing corruptible; for it is against its nature to love anything corruptible, seeing that it is itself the fount of incorruption. For, because God, who only hath immortality and inhabiteth light inaccessible, is Charity, it is charity alone that possesses immortality. And what is immortality, except the life eternal which God promises to give to those who believe in Him, the only true God, and in Jesus Christ, whom He has sent? And for that reason we are told that the thing which in the first place and before all else is acceptable and pleasing to God, is that a man should love the Lord his God with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his powers. And because God is Charity, and the Son likewise, who is of God, is Charity, He requires in us something like Himself; so that through this charity which is in Christ Jesus, we may be allied to God who is Charity, as it were in a sort of blood relationship through this name of charity; even as he, who was already united to Him, said: Who shall separate us from the charity of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord?

This charity, however, reckons all men as neighbours. For on that account the Saviour rebuked someone, who thought that the obligation to behave neighbourly did not apply to a righteous soul in regard to one who was sunk in wickedness; and for that same reason He made up the parable that tells how a certain man fell among robbers, as he was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and blames the priest and the Levite, who passed by when they saw the man half-dead, but approves the Samaritan who showed mercy. And, by means of the reply of him who raised the question, He affirmed that the Samaritan was the neighbour of the man, and said: Go, and do thou in like manner. By nature, indeed, we are all of us neighbours one of another; but by the works of charity a man who has it in his power to do service to another who has not that power, becomes his neighbour. Wherefore also our Saviour became neighbour to us, and when we were lying half-dead from the wounds the robbers had inflicted on us, He did not pass us by.

We must recognize, therefore, that the charity of God is always directed towards God, from whom also it takes its origin, and looks back towards the neighbour, with whom it is in kinship as being similarly created in incorruption. So you must take whatever Scripture says about charity as if it had been said with reference to passionate love, taking no notice of the difference of terms; for the same meaning is conveyed by both. But if anyone should remark that we speak of 'loving' money and harlots and such—like evils, using the same word as that which has obvious reference to charity, you must understand that in such contexts we speak of charity by an improper use, and not according to its basic sense. To take another example, the word 'God' is used primarily of Him of whom are all things, and by whom are all things, and in whom are all things; so that it declares plainly the virtue and nature of the Trinity. But by a secondary and so to speak improper usage Scripture describes as gods those to whom the word of God came, as the Saviour affirms in the Gospels. And the heavenly powers also seem to be called by this name when it is said: God hath stood in the congregation of gods; and, being in the midst of them, He judgeth gods. And by a third usage, false rather than improper, the daemonic gods of the Gentiles are so styled when Scripture says: All the gods of the Gentiles are devils.

Thus, then, the name of charity belongs first to God; and for that reason we are bidden to love God with all our heart and all our soul and all our strength—Him, that is, from whom we have the very power of loving. And this command undoubtedly implies that we should also love wisdom and right-doing and piety and truth and all the other virtues; for to love God and to love good things is one and the same thing. In the second place, we are bidden also to love our neighbour as ourselves by a use of the word that is, as it were, derived and secondary. And the third usage is that by which 'loving' money, or pleasure, or anything that is connected with corruption and error, is called charity by a misnomer. So it makes no difference whether we speak of having a passion for God, or of loving Him; and I do not think one could be blamed if one called God Passionate Love (Amorem), just as John calls Him Charity (Caritatem). Indeed I remember that one of the saints, by name Ignatius, said of Christ: 'My Love (Amor) is crucified,' and I do not consider him worthy of censure on this account. All the same, you must understand that everyone who loves money or any of the things of corruptible substance that the world contains, is debasing the power of charity, which is of God, to earthly and perishable objects, and is misusing the things of God by making them serve purposes that are not His; for God gave the things to men to be used, not to be loved.

We have discussed these matters at some length because we wanted to distinguish more clearly and carefully between the nature of passionate love and that of charity; lest perhaps, because Scripture says that God is Charity, the charity and love that is of God should be esteemed to be in our every attachment, even to corruptible things. And we have seen that though charity is truly the possession and the gift of God, His work is not always appropriated by men for the things of God and for what God wills.

At the same time we ought to understand also that it is impossible for human nature not to be always feeling the passion of love for something. Everyone who has reached the age that they call puberty loves something, either less rightly when he loves what he should not, or rightly and with profit when he loves what he should love. But some people pervert this faculty of passionate love, which is implanted in the human soul by the Creator's kindness. Either it becomes with them a passion for money and the pursuit of avaricious ends; or they go after glory and become desirous of vainglory; or they chase after harlots and are found the prisoners of wantonness and lewdness; or else they squander the strength of this great good on other things like these. Moreover, when this passion of love is directed on to diverse skills, whether manual crafts or occupations needful only for this present life—the art of wrestling, for example, and track running—or even when it is expended on the study of geometry or music or arithmetic or similar branches of learning, neither in that case does it seem to me to be used laudably. For if that which is good is also laudable—and by that which is good we understand not anything corporeal, but only that which is found first in God and in the powers of the soul—it follows that the only laudable love is that which is directed to God and to the powers of the soul.

And that this is the case is shown by Our Saviour's own statement when, having been asked by a certain person what was the greatest commandment of all and the first in the Law, He replied: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with all thy powers; … and the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, and He added: On these two commandments dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets, showing thereby that true and perfect love consists in keeping these two, and that the entire Law and Prophets hang on them. And the other injunction: Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, and whatever other commandment there may be is summed up in the words: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself

This will be better explained as follows. Suppose, for instance, that there is a woman with an ardent passion of love for a certain man who longs to be admitted to wedlock with him. Will she not act in all respects and regulate her every movement in a manner designed to please the man she loves, lest maybe, if she acts against his will in something, that excellent man may refuse and scorn her society? Will this woman, whose whole heart and soul and strength are on fire with passionate love for that man, be able to commit adultery, when she well knows that he loves purity? Or murder, when she knows him to be gentle, or theft, seeing she knows him to be pleased with generosity? Or will she covet other people's goods, when all her own desires are absorbed in passionate devotion for that man?

That is the sense in which every commandment is said to be comprised in the perfection of charity, and the strength of the Law and the Prophets to depend on it. Because of this good gift of charity or love, the saints are neither straitened in tribulation, nor utterly perplexed in doubt, nor do they perish when they are cast down; but that which is at present momentary and light of their tribulation worketh for them above measure an eternal weight of glory. This present tribulation is not described as momentary and light for everyone, but only for Paul and those who resemble him in having the perfect charity of God in Christ Jesus poured out in their hearts by the Holy Spirit.

In the same way also it was the love of Rachel that kept the patriarch Jacob from feeling the searing of either heat by day or cold by night through seven long years of toil. So too do I hear Paul himself, enkindled by the power of this love, declare: Charity beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things; charity never falls. There is, therefore, nothing that he who loves perfectly would not endure; but there are many things that we do not endure, simply because we have not got the charity that endureth all things. And, if we are impatient under certain burdens, it is because we lack the charity that beareth all things. In the struggle that we have to wage with the devil, too, we often fall; undoubtedly because the charity that never falls is not in us.

The Scripture before us, therefore, speaks of this love with which the blessed soul is kindled and inflamed towards the Word of God; it sings by the Spirit the song of the marriage whereby the Church is joined and allied to Christ the heavenly Bridegroom, desiring to be united to Him through the Word, so that she may conceive by Him and be saved through this chaste begetting of children, when they—conceived as they are indeed of the seed of the Word of God, and born and brought forth by the spotless Church, or by the soul that seeks nothing bodily, nothing material, but is aflame with the single love of the Word of God—shall have persevered in faith and holiness with sobriety.

These are the considerations that have occurred to us thus far regarding the love or charity that is set forth in this marriage-hymn that is the Song of Songs. But we must realize how many things there are that ought to be said about this charity, what great things also about God, since He is Charity Himself. For, as no one knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal Him, so also no one knows Charity except the Son. In the same way also, no one knoweth the Son, since He Himself likewise is Charity, except the Father. Further and in like manner, because He is called Charity, it is the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, who alone knows what is in God; just as the spirit of man knows what is in man. Wherefore this Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth who proceedeth from the Father, goes about trying to find souls worthy and able to receive the greatness of this charity, that is of God, that He desires to reveal to them.

3. The Place of the Song of Songs among the Works of Solomon

Now, therefore, calling upon God the Father, who is Charity, through that same charity that is of Him, let us pass on to discuss the other matters. And let us first investigate the reason why, when the churches of God have adopted three books from Solomon's pen, the Book of Proverbs has been put first, that which is called Ecclesiastes second, while the Song of Songs is found in the third place. The following are the suggestions that occur to us here.

The branches of learning by means of which men generally attain to knowledge of things are the three which the Greeks called Ethics, Physics and Enoptics; these we may call respectively moral, natural, and inspective. Some among the Greeks, of course, add a fourth branch, Logic, which we may describe as rational. Others have said that Logic does not stand by itself, but is connected and intertwined throughout with the three studies that we mentioned first. For this Logic is, as we say, rational, in that it deals with the meanings and proper significances and their opposites, the classes and kinds of words and expressions, and gives information as to the form of each and every saying; and this branch of learning certainly requires not so much to be separated from the others as to be mingled and inwoven with them. That study is called moral, on the other hand, which inculcates a seemly manner of life and gives a grounding in habits that incline to virtue. The study called natural is that in which the nature of each single thing is considered; so that nothing in life may be done which is contrary to nature, but everything is assigned to the uses for which the Creator brought it into being. The study called inspective is that by which we go beyond things seen and contemplate somewhat of things divine and heavenly, beholding them with the mind alone, for they are beyond the range of bodily sight.

It seems to me, then, that all the sages of the Greeks borrowed these ideas from Solomon, who had learnt them by the Spirit of God at an age and time long before their own; and that they then put them forward as their own inventions and, by including them in the books of their teachings, left them to be handed down also to those that came after. But, as we said, Solomon discovered and taught these things by the wisdom that he received from God, before anyone; as it is written: And God gave understanding to Solomon and wisdom exceeding much, and largeness of heart as the sand that is on the seashore. And wisdom was multiplied in him above all the sons of men that were of old, and above all the sages of Egypt. Wishing, therefore, to distinguish one from another those three branches of learning, which we called general just now—that is, the moral, the natural, and the inspective, and to differentiate between them, Solomon issued them in three books, arranged in their proper order. First, in Proverbs he taught the moral science, putting rules for living into the form of short and pithy maxims, as was fitting. Secondly, he covered the science known as natural in Ecclesiastes; in this, by discussing at length the things of nature, and by distinguishing the useless and vain from the profitable and essential, he counsels us to forsake vanity and cultivate things useful and upright. The inspective science likewise he has propounded in this little book that we have now in hand—that is, the Song of Songs. In this he instills into the soul the love of things divine and heavenly, using for his purpose the figure of the Bride and Bridegroom, and teaches us that communion with God must be attained by the paths of charity and love. But that in laying down these basic principles of true philosophy and establishing the order of the subjects to be learnt and taught, he was neither ignorant of the rational science nor refused to deal with it, he shows plainly right at the beginning of his Proverbs, primarily by the fact that he made Proverbs the title of his book; for the word pro-verb denotes that one thing is openly said, and another is inwardly meant. The ordinary use of proverbs shows us this, and John in his Gospel writes of the Saviour saying: These things have I spoken to you in proverbs; the hour cometh when I will no more speak to you in proverbs, but will show you plainly of the Father.

So much in passing for the actual tide. But Solomon goes on forthwith to discriminate between the meanings of words: he distinguishes knowledge from wisdom, and instruction from knowledge, and represents the understanding of words as something different again, and says that prudence consists in a person's ability to grasp the shades of meaning in words. He differentiates, moreover, between true justice and right judgement; but he mentions a certain perspicacity as being necessary for those whom he instructs—meaning, I believe, the astuteness of perception by which crooked and fallacious lines of thought may be seen for what they are, and shunned accordingly. And he says, therefore, that subtlety is given by wisdom to the innocent, doubtless lest they should be deceived in the Word of God by sophistic fraud. And in this also it seems to me that he has in mind the rational science, whereby the content of words and the meanings of expressions are discerned, and the proper significance of every utterance is reasonably defined. Children in particular are to be instructed in this science; he enjoins this when he says: to give perception and the faculty of thought to the younger child. And because he who is instructed in these matters inevitably rules himself reasonably, because of what he has learned, and preserves a better balance in his life, Solomon says further: He who understandeth shall acquire government.

But after all this, knowing that there are different modes of expression and sundry forms of speech in the divine words, whereby the order of living has been transmitted by the prophets to the human race, and realizing that among these there is one figure called a parable, another that is known as dark speech, others that have the name of riddles, and others again that are called the sayings of the wise, he writes: Thou shalt also understand the parable, and dark speech, and the sayings of the wise, and riddles. Thus, by these several means, he expounds the rational science clearly and plainly; and, following the custom of the ancients, he unfolds immense and perfect truths in short and pithy phrases. And, if there is anyone who meditates day and night on the law of the Lord, if there is anyone who is as the mouth of the just that meditates wisdom, he will be able to investigate and discover these things more carefully; always provided that he have first sought and knocked at Wisdom's door, beseeching God to open to him and to make him worthy to receive the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge through the Holy Spirit, and to make him a partaker of that Wisdom who said: I stretched out my words and ye did not hear.

And rightly does he speak of 'stretching out his words' in the heart of him to whom God had given largeness of heart, as we said above. For the heart of a man is enlarged, when he is able, by taking statements from the Divine Books, to expand by fuller teaching the things that are said briefly and in enigmatic ways. According to this same doctrine of the most wise Solomon, therefore, it behoves him who desires to know wisdom to begin with moral instruction, and to understand the meaning of the text: Thou hast desired Wisdom: then keep the commandments, and God will give her to thee. This, then, was the reason why this master, who was the first to teach men divine philosophy, put at the beginning of his work the Book of Proverbs, in which, as we said, the moral science is propounded—so that when a person has progressed in discernment and behaviour he may pass on thence to train his natural intelligence and, by distinguishing the causes and natures of things, may recognize the vanity of vanities that he must forsake, and the lasting and eternal things that he ought to pursue. And so from Proverbs he goes on to Ecclesiastes, who teaches, as we said, that all visible and corporeal things are fleeting and brittle; and surely once the seeker after wisdom has grasped that these things are so, he is bound to spurn and despise them; renouncing the world bag and baggage, if I may put it in that way, he will surely reach out for the things unseen and eternal which, with spiritual meaning verily but under certain secret metaphors of love, are taught in the Song of Songs.

This book comes last that a man may come to it when his manner of life has been purified, and he has learnt to know the difference between things corruptible and things incorruptible; so that nothing in the metaphors used to describe and represent the love of the Bride for her celestial Bridegroom—that is, of the perfect soul for the Word of God—may cause him to stumble. For, when the soul has completed these studies, by means of which it is cleansed in all its actions and habits and is led to discriminate between natural things, it is competent to proceed to dogmatic and mystical matters, and in this way advances to the contemplation of the Godhead with pure and spiritual love.

I think, moreover, that this threefold structure of divine philosophy was prefigured in those holy and blessed men on account of whose most holy way of life the Most High God willed to be called the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For Abraham sets forth moral philosophy through obedience; his obedience was indeed so great, his adherence to orders so strict that when he heard the command: Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and out of thy father's house, he did not delay, but did as he was told forthwith. And he did more even than that: even on hearing that he was to sacrifice his son, he does not hesitate, but complies with the command and, to give an example to those who should come after of the obedience in which moral philosophy consists, he spared not his only son. Isaac also is an exponent of natural philosophy, when he digs wells and searches out the roots of things. And Jacob practices the inspective science, in that he earned his name of Israel from his contemplation of the things of God, and saw the camps of heaven, and beheld the House of God and the angels' paths—the ladders reaching up from earth to heaven.

We find, moreover, that for this reason those three blessed men made altars to God, as it was fitting that they should—that is to say, they hallowed the results of their philosophy, no doubt that they might teach us that these fruits must be ascribed, not to our human skills, but to the grace of God. Further, they lived in tents to show thereby that he who applies himself to divine philosophy must have nothing of his own on earth and must be always moving on, not so much from place to place as from knowledge of inferior matters to that of perfect ones. And you will find that this order, which we have pointed out in regard to the books of Solomon, appears in just the same pattern in many other things in the Divine Scriptures too; but it would take too long for us to follow these up, with another matter on hand.

If, then, a man has completed his course in the first subject, as taught in Proverbs, by amending his behaviour and keeping the commandments, and thereafter, having seen how empty is the world and realized the brittleness of transitory things, has come to renounce the world and all that is therein, he will follow on from that point to contemplate and to desire the things that are not seen, and that are eternal. To attain to these, however, we need God's mercy; so that, having beheld the beauty of the Word of God, we may be kindled with a saving love for Him, and He Himself may deign to love the soul, whose longing for Himself He has perceived.

4. The Title 'Song of Songs'

We must now pass on to our next point, and discuss the actual title of 'The Song of Songs.' You find a similar phrase in what were called the holies of holies in the Tent of the Testimony, and again in the works of works mentioned in the Book of Numbers, and in what Paul calls the ages of ages. In other treatises we have, as far as we were able, considered the difference between holies and holies of holies in Exodus, and between works and works of works in the Book of Numbers; neither did we pass over the expression ages of ages in the passages where it occurs. Rather than repeat ourselves, therefore, we will let those comments suffice.

But we must now enquire for the first time what are the songs in relation to which this song is called 'The Song of Songs.' I think they are the songs that were sung of old by prophets or by angels. For the Law is said to have been ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. All those, then, that were uttered by them, were the introductory songs sung by the Bridegroom's friends; but this unique song is that which the Bridegroom Himself was to sing as His marriage-hymn, when about to take His Bride; in which same song the Bride no longer wants the Bridegroom's friends to sing to her, but longs to hear her Spouse who now is with her, speak with His own lips; wherefore she says: Let Him kiss me with the kisses of His mouth.

Rightly, then, is this song preferred before all songs. The other songs that the Law and the prophets sang, were sung to the Bride while she was still a little child and had not yet attained maturity. But this song is sung to her, now that she is grown up, and very strong, and ready for a husband's power and the perfect mystery. It is said of her for this reason: My perfect dove is but one.

As the perfect Bride of the perfect Husband, then, she has received the words of perfect doctrine. Moses and the children of Israel sang the first song to God, when they saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore, and when they saw the strong hand and the high arm of the Lord, and believed in God and Moses His servant. Then they sang, therefore, saying: Let us sing to the Lord, for He is gloriously magnified. And I think myself that nobody can attain to that perfect and mystical song and to the perfection of the Bride which this Scripture contains, unless he first marches through the midst of the sea upon dry land and, with the water becoming to him as a wall on the right hand and on the left, so makes his escape from the hands of the Egyptians that he beholds them dead on the seashore and, seeing the strong hand with which the Lord has acted against the Egyptians, believes in the Lord and in His servant Moses. In Moses, I say—in the Law, and in the Gospels, and in all the Divine Scriptures; for then he will have good cause to sing and say: Let us sing unto the Lord, for He is gloriously magnified.

A man will sing this song, however, only when he has first been freed from bondage to the Egyptians; but after that, when he has traversed all those things that are written in Exodus and in Leviticus, and has come to be admitted to the divine Numbers, then he will sing another, a second song, when he has emerged from the valley of Zared, which means Strange Descent, and has come to the well of which it is written: And the Lord said to Moses: 'Gather the people together, and I will give them water to drink from the well.' For there he will sing and say: Consecrate the well to Him. The princes dug it, the kings of the Gentiles hewed it out in their kingdom, when they had the rule over them. But we have already treated more fully of these matters, as far as the Lord gave us, in treating of the Book of Numbers. We must proceed, then, to the well which has been dug by princes and hewn out by kings, on which no common person labours, but all are princes, all are kings—royal and princely souls, that is too say, who search to its depths the well that holds the living water.

After this song we come to that in Deuteronomy, of which the Lord says: And now write you the words of this song and teach it to the children of Israel, and get them to know it by heart; that this song may be unto me for a testimony among the children of Israel. And see how great a song and of what sort it is, for which it is not enough that it be sung on earth alone, but heaven too is called upon to listen to it! For it says: Hear, O heaven, and I will speak: and let the earth give ear to the words of my mouth! Observe what great and what momentous things are said. Let my speech, it says, be looked for as the rain, and let it come down as the dew upon the grass and as falling snow on the hay; because I have invoked the Name of the Lord, and so forth.

The fourth song is in the Book of Judges. Of it Scripture says that Debbora and Barac son of Abinoem sang it in that day, saying: 'Bless ye the Lord for that which the princes undertook, and that which the people purposed. Hear, O ye kings, give ear, ye governors,' and so forth. But he who sings these words must be himself a bee, whose work is such that kings and commoners alike make use of it for purposes of health. For Debbora means bee, and it is she who sings this song; but Barac sings it with her, and his name means a flash. And this song is sung after a victory, because no one can sing of perfect things until he has conquered his foes. That is why we sing in this same song: Arise, arise, O Debbora, rouse up the people in their thousands. Arise, arise, sing a song; arise, O Barac. But you will find further discussion of these questions too in the little addresses that we published on the Book of Judges.

Following these, the fifth song is in the Second Book of Kings, when David spoke to the Lord the words of this song, in the day that the Lord delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul, and he said: 'The Lord is to me as a rock and a defence and my deliverer; my God will be my keeper.' If, then, you also have been able to reflect as to who are these enemies whom David vanquishes and overthrows in the First and Second Books of Kings, and how he became worthy to receive the help of the Lord and to be delivered from enemies like that, then you yourself also will be able to sing this fifth song.

The sixth song is in the First Book of Paralipomenon, when David has just appointed Asaph and his brethren to sing the praises of the Lord; and the song begins like this: Praise ye the Lord and confess Him, and call upon Him by His name; make known His will among the peoples. Sing ye to Him and chant a hymn, relate all His wondrous doings that the Lord hath done, etc. You must know, however, that the song in the Second Book of Kings is very much like the seventeenth Psalm; and the first part of the song in the First Book of Paralipomenon, as far as the place where it says: And do no evil to my prophets, resembles Psalm 104, while the latter part of it, after this passage, shows a likeness to the opening verses of Psalm 95, where we read: Sing to the Lord, all the earth, down to the place where the psalmist says, because He cometh to judge the earth.

If, therefore, we are to finish our enumeration of the songs, it will be obvious that the book of the Song of Songs must be put in the seventh place. But, if anyone thinks that the song of Isaias should be numbered with the others—though it does not seem very suitable that the song of Isaias should be put before the Song of Songs, seeing that Isaias wrote much later—if, notwithstanding, anyone is of opinion that the prophetic utterances are to be adjudged according to their content rather than their date, he will then add that song as well, and say that this song that Solomon sang is the Song of Songs not only in relation to those that were sung before it, but also in respect of those that followed it in time. Whereas if anyone opines further that we ought to add from the Book of Psalms whatever is there called a song, or a song of a psalm, he will gather together a multitude of psalms that are older in time. For he will add to the others the fifteen Gradual Songs and, by assessing the virtue of each song separately and collecting from them the grades of the soul's advance, and putting together the order and sequence of things with spiritual understanding, he will be able to show with what stately steps the Bride, as she makes her entrance, attains by way of all these to the nuptial chamber of the Bridegroom, passing into the place of the wonderful tabernacle, even to the House of God with the voice of joy and praise, the noise of one feasting. So she comes, as we said, even to the Bridegroom's chamber, that she may hear and speak all these things that are contained in the Song of Songs.

Before we come to the actual text of the book, we may make this further enquiry. Why is it that Solomon, who served the will of the Holy Spirit in these three books, is called Solomon, son of David, who reigned in Israel in Proverbs, while in the second book the name Solomon does not appear and he says merely: The words of Ecclesiastes, the son of David, king of Israel in Jerusalem, calling himself son of David and king of Israel as in the first book, but writing 'words' here in place of 'proverbs,' and calling himself Ecclesiastes, where formerly he gave his name Solomon? And whereas in the former he mentioned only the nation over which he reigned, here he mentions both the nation and the seat of government, Jerusalem. But in the Song of Songs he writes neither the name of the nation, nor the place where he reigns, nor even that he is the king at all, nor yet that he had David for his father; he only says the Song of Songs that is Solomon's own. And although it is difficult for me both to be able to examine the differences in these books and arrive at any explanation of them, and also to expound them dearly and commit them to writing when they have been thus searched out, nevertheless, as far as our own intelligence and our readers' apprehension allow, we will try to unfold these matters briefly.

It is, I think, unquestionable that Solomon is in many respects a type of Christ, first in that he is called the Peaceable, and also because the queen of the south … came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon. Christ is thus called the Son of David, and reigns in Israel; He reigns also over those kings from whom He gets the title King of kings. Again, He who, being in the form of God, … emptied Himself taking the form of a servant, that He might gather the Church into one flock, is Himself the true Ecclesiast; for an ecclesiast takes his title from his function of assembling the ecclesia. And then again, who is so truly Solomon—that is, Peaceable, as Our Lord Jesus Christ, who of God is made unto us wisdom and justice and peace? Therefore in the first book, Proverbs, where he grounds us in ethical teaching, Solomon is called king in Israel—not in Jerusalem, as yet; because, although we be called Israel by reason of faith, we have not yet got so far as to reach the heavenly Jerusalem. When, however, we have made further progress, and have attained to fellowship with the Church of the firstborn that is in heaven and, having rid ourselves more thoroughly of our old natural concerns, have come to recognize the heavenly Jerusalem as our celestial Mother, then Christ becomes our Ecclesiast too, and is said to reign not in Israel only, but also in Jerusalem. And when the perfection of all things has been achieved and the Bride, who has been perfected—in other words, the whole rational creation—is united with Him, because He hath made peace through His blood, not only as to the things that are on earth, but also as to the things that are in heaven, then He is called Solomon only, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father, when He shall have brought to nought all principality and power. For He must reign until He hath put all His enemies under His feet and death, the last enemy, is destroyed. Thus, when all things have been pacified and subjected to the Father, and God is all in all, then He will be called Solomon and nothing else—that is, the Peaceable, only.

Fittingly, therefore, and for the same reason as before, we find in this little book that was to be written about the love of the Bridegroom and the Bride, neither 'Son of David,' nor 'king,' nor any other term patent of a corporeal connotation; thus the Bride now perfected may say of Him with reason: And if we have known Christ after the flesh for a while, but now we know Him so no longer. Let no one think that she loves anything belonging to the body or pertaining to the flesh, and let no stain be thought of in connection with her love. So the Song of Songs is simply Solomon's; it belongs neither to the Son of David, nor to Israel's king, and there is no suggestion of anything carnal about it. And let it not surprise you, seeing that Our Lord and Saviour is One and the Same, that we should speak of Him first as a beginner, in Proverbs; then as advancing, in Ecclesiastes; and lastly as more perfect in the Song of Songs, when you see the same things written in the Gospels where He is said, for us and among us, to advance. Jesus advanced, it is written, in age and wisdom with God and men.

It is, I think, because of all these things that neither 'Son of David' nor 'King of Israel' is written; and also for this further reason that in the Song of Songs the Bride had progressed to the point where there was something greater than the kingdom of Jerusalem. For the Apostle says there is a heavenly Jerusalem, and speaks of believers coming thither; but the same Paul calls this Bridegroom, to whom the Bride now hastens, the High Priest, and writes of Him not as being in heaven, but as passing into and beyond all the heavens; whither also His perfected Bride follows Him; cleaving to Him and joined to Him, she has ascended thither, for she has been made one spirit with Him.

Hence too it seems to me that this was the reason why, when He said to Peter, who could not follow Him at first: Whither I go, ye cannot come now, He added: but thou shalt follow hereafter. And we gather from the Book of Numbers that there may be something greater than Israel too. For there the whole of Israel is numbered and reckoned in twelve tribes, as under a fixed number; but the tribe of Levi, being of greater eminence than the others, is accounted extra to this number and never thought of as being one of Israel's number; for the writer says: This is the visit of inspection in which the children of Israel were reckoned according to their households; the visitation of them yielded a total of six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty. And the Levites were not included in this number, as the Lord commanded Moses. You see how the Levites are set apart from the children of Israel, as being of greater eminence, and are not reckoned among their number.

Further, the priests are described as being more eminent than the Levites; for this same Scripture tells us that the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 'Bring the tribe of Levi and make them stand in the sight of Aaron the priest, to minister to him.' Do you see how here too he both speaks of the priests as superior to the Levites, and once more makes the Levites appear as more eminent than the children of Israel?

We have thought fit to discuss these matters rather more carefully, because we wanted by their means to demonstrate the reason why, in the very titles of his books, Solomon differentiated as necessity required, and signified one thing in Proverbs, another in Ecclesiastes, and yet another in the Song of Songs, as the title in each case shows. And the fact that in the Song of Songs, where now perfection is shown forth, he describes himself neither as son of David, nor as king, enables us to say further that, since the servant has been made the lord, and the disciple as the master, the servant obviously is such no longer: he has become as the lord. Neither does the disciple figure as a disciple when he has been made as the master; rather, the sometime disciple is in truth as the master now, and the sometime servant as the lord. This line of thought may be applied also to the case of the king and those over whom he reigns, when the kingdom will be delivered up to God and the Father.

But let us not overlook the further fact that some people write the title of this little book as Songs of Songs. That is, however, incorrect; it is called the Song of Songs in the singular, not in the plural.

Let these remarks on the actual heading or title of the book suffice for introduction. Now, with Our Lord's help, let us go on to consider the beginning of the work itself; yet—not to leave anything out—there is one other point about the title and heading of the book that seems to some people to require investigation. For The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's own, is taken by these persons as meaning the Song of the Songs of Solomon, as though he signalized this one song among his many songs. But how shall we accept an interpretation like this when, in the first place, the Church of God has not adopted any further songs of Solomon to be read; and, in the second place, the Hebrews, by whom God's utterances were transmitted to us, have in their canon no other than these three books of Solomon that we also have in ours? Those who advance this view, however, urge in its support that in the Third Book of Kings we are told that Solomon's songs were many, they cite this to prove that this song is one of many. The passage in question runs: And God gave to Solomon understanding and wisdom exceeding much and largeness of heart as the sand that is on the seashore. And Solomon became exceeding wise, surpassing the wisdom of all the ancients and of all the sages of Egypt, and surpassing Gethan the Zarite and Henan and Chalcat and Darala; and Solomon spoke three thousand parables, and his songs were five thousand. They would, therefore, reckon this Song, of which we are treating, as of the number of these five thousand songs; but as to when or where those songs were sung, the churches of God have no experience, nor have they even any knowledge of them.

It would be toilsome and irrelevant to the matter in hand for us to enquire how many books are mentioned in the Divine Scriptures, of which nothing whatever has been handed down for us to read. Nor do we find that the Jews made use of lections of this kind; for either the Holy Spirit saw fit to remove them from our midst, because they contained some matters beyond human understanding; or else—in the case of those scriptures that are called apocrypha—because many things were found in them that were corrupt and contrary to the true faith, our predecessors did not see fit for them to be given a place, or admitted among those reckoned as authoritative.

It is beyond us to pass judgement on such matters. But it is common knowledge that the apostles and evangelists borrowed and put into the New Testament many things that we read nowhere in the Scriptures that we account canonical, but that are found none the less in the apocryphal writings, and are quite obviously taken from them. Not that the apocryphal writings are to be given a place in this way: we must not overpass the everlasting limits which our fathers have set. But it may be that the apostles and evangelists, being filled with the Holy Spirit, knew what was to be taken out of those writings and what must be rejected; whereas we, who have not such abundance of the Spirit, cannot without danger presume so to select.

In regard to the text before us, therefore, we keep to the statement which we explained above, especially as the writer himself makes a clear distinction by saying: The Song of Songs that is Solomon's own. For, if he had meant us to understand that this is the Song of Solomon's Songs, he would surely have said: The Song of the Songs that are Solomon's, or A Song from among the Songs of Solomon. But now his saying that is Solomon's shows that this Song, which we have in hand and which he was about to sing, is Solomon's, and for that reason has the title that he gave to it.…