The title of this poem designates Solomon as the author, but internal evidence is against it. The writer mentions David in such a manner as if he were not his father (iv. 4). The words, “Solomon had a vineyard,” (‏כֶּרֶם הָיָה לִשְלֹמֹה‎) in viii. 11, show that the author was not a contemporary of Solomon. The subject, especially of the poem, is decisive against Solomon’s authorship. It is impossible that he should describe himself as having attempted to gain the espoused affections of a country maiden, and being defeated by her virtue. The title is evidently the addition of some other person; for the author of the book never uses the pronoun ‏אֲשֶׁר‎, but invariably employs the form ‏שׁ‎; nor would he announce his own production as “the finest or most celebrated Song.” The exact date of this poem has been much disputed. The powerful and fluent style in which it is written, the originality of the figures, the freshness of the landscapes, the life-like descriptions of local circumstances, the imagery drawn from the royal court of Solomon, the horses of Pharaoh, the tower of David, the tower of Solomon, the pools of Heshbon, show that the poem must have been written in the most flourishing age of the Hebrew language, and about the time of Solomon. The Aramaisms, which used formerly to be adduced in order to transfer the book to an age after the captivity, are now rightly rejected by modern critics as inconclusive, since almost every poetical composition of the earliest age contains such Aramaisms. The word ‏פַּרְדֵס‎ (iv. 13), to which a Persian etymology has been assigned, and which has especially been used to show the late period of this poem, is of a Shemitic origin. See Comment, in loco. The form, ‏שׁ‎ for ‏אֲשֵׁר‎, is also used in Judges v. 7, vi. 17, vii. 12, viii. 26, and ‏דָוִיד‎ with god in Amos vi. 5, ix. 11, Hos. iii. 5. The form of the book has also been a matter of great dispute. From its earliest age it has been regarded as one continued poem in a dramatic form. Since the time of Richard Simon, however, who pronounced this book, “summam confusionem, in quo vix ac ne vix quidem personas discernere queas,” [154] it has been split by many into fragments, and in turn been regarded as consisting of a number of eclogues, or armorets, as an epithalamium, or nuptial song, and as a regular drama. Having traced the unity of the poem in Section III., we need not again show the unsoundness of the fragmentary theory, which originated from a misunderstanding of the design of the book. It seems to approach nearest in form to a drama. Yet we cannot think, with Ewald and others, that it is a regular drama. The genius, character, and manners of the Shemitic nations, their deficiency in plastic art, and their aversion to females appearing on a public stage, seem to militate against it. SECTION VIII.—EXEGETICAL HELPS. ANCIENT VERSIONS.