6 In 1751 was published, 'A Dissertation on the 'Song of Solomon, with the original text, divided ' according to the metre (upon Bishop Hare's hy'pothesis) and a poetical version,' (8vo. Millar.) Dr. Kippis says that it was written by a Mr. Gifford, who considers the poem as a pastoral, composed by Solomon, as the amusement of his lighter hours; just after his nuptials with Pha'raoh's daughter.' In this view he looks' upon it as a very elegant and beautiful performance. He thinks it was in the gaiety of youth, and before God had so remarkably appeared to him, and given him that divine wisdom, for which he was afterward so eminent?! This date he builds chiefly on the order in which Solomon's works are mentioned by the Son of Sirach, which, with the author's other arguments, has been considered in its place. The version is elegant, but being in rhyme is of no assistance as a translation. The late learned Bishop of London, Dr. Lowth in his Prælectiones, since translated by Dr. Gregory, devoted two lectures3 expressly to this poem, and maintains it, as we have already seen, to be an allegorical composition. Michaelis, the learned Gottingen professor, whose notes are subjoined, rejects this interpretation, and understands it only as a poem in the praise of matrimonial the only apology which can be made for it; since, though the version is extremely elegant, it always perverts the lan-A guage of Solomon to the most profane and licentious: meaning. 1 Doddridge's Lectures, vol. II. p. 117, note. 3d. edit. 2 Mon. Rev. 1751, p. 492. 3 Lect. xxx. xxxi. love; yet he admits it to be perfectly chaste, as well as, elegant. Rev. Mr. Henley, of Hendlesham, has answered these in other notes, in which he endeavours to support the allegory. In 1764 was published A New Translation, ' with a Commentary and Annotations,' [thin 8vo. Dodsley,] in which the author confines himself to the literal sense, and endeavours to correct some passages of the original, which he supposes may have been corrupted in transcribing. This work was anonymous, but is universally ascribed to Dr. Percy, the editor of Reliques of antient English Poetry,' and since Bishop of Dromore in Ireland. The year 1768 produced Mr. Harmer's valuable volume, entitled, Outlines of a Commentary on Solomon's Song, drawn by the help of in'structions from the East.' This work contains, 1. Remarks on its general nature: 2. Observations on detached places: and, 3. Queries concerning the rest of this poem. The reader will see by the frequent references to this and the preceding works, how much I have been indebted to them. In 1772 Dr. Durell published Critical Remarks on Job, Proverbs, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Canticles. In the latter the Dr. considers the Song of Songs as an epithalamium on Solomon's marriage with Pharaoh's daughter; the composition he supposes of a middle nature, between the dramatic and pastoral, but totally excludes any allegorical or spiritual design. I have next to mention a Scotch anonymous publication, written in 1769, and printed at Edinburgh in 1775, entitled, The Song of Solomon 'paraphrased, with an introduction, commentary, ' and notes.' This work is dedicated to Bishop Lowth; but I have not been able to learn any thing of its author, who appears to have been a man of learning and judgment, and is peculiarly happy in his divisions of this poem, which appear to me preferable to those of Bossuet. The next version (printed 1781) was the production of a lady, assisted by the late learned and ingenious Mr. Parkhurst, viz. A poetical Trans'lation of Solomon's Song, from the original He'brew, by Ann Francis,' accompanied with notes, from Percy, Harmer, Parkhurst, &c. This being in rhyme, like that of Mr. Gifford and some others, can be of little use to a literal translator, and the division of it into acts and scenes gives it too much the appearance of a modern drama. In the same year the Rev. W. Green, M. A, rector of Hardingham in Norfolk, published a new translation of the poetical parts of the Old Testament, and among the rest, of Solomon's Song, The lines were measured and divided according to the hypothesis of Bishop Hare, and contained many passages as awkward and unpoetical as the following: Ch. I. 5. I am black as the tents Ch. II. 7. I conjure you, O ye daughters There are some good lines, and some learned observations; but in point of arrangement and harmony of style, the reader will see little assistance is to be derived from this writer. The introduction, commentary and notes, are, by the author's acknowledgment, chiefly taken from those of Dr. Percy above referred to. In 1785 was printed, at the Clarendon Press, 'SOLOMON'S SONG, translated from the Hebrew, by Bernard Hodgson, LL. D. Principal of 'Hertford college. This version is in measured lines, and might have saved me considerable trouble in that respect, had I seen it before mine was written. I have, however, availed myself of several of the author's criticisms, and in some places corrected my version by them: in others I have widely differed from him, and given my reasons. Dr. Hodgson does not meddle with the allegorical sense, but confines' his attempt to an elegant and correct version. The latest production I have seen on this subject is the following, The Preacher and Song of 'Solomon, newly translated, with short explana. tory notes, by Dr. J. C. Döderlein.' This work was printed in Dutch, at Jena; but an English literal version is given of it in the appendix to the 15th vol, of the Critical Review, 1795. The late excellent Mr. Romaine published a volume of practical discourses on some detached verses of this book, in which he endeavours to avoid the whimsical application of every minute part of the allegory, as practised by the old divines; and recommends a mode of exposition similar to that which I have adopted, and which it is time I should hasten to explain. The reader is now in possession of my authorities, and the authors I have been able to consult, among the great number which have written on this book. Should he enquire what method I have taken to profit by their labours, the following particulars will inform him : 1. Having attempted from the original' a translation as literal as I conceive our language will bear, I compared it, especially in the difficult passages, with all the others I could procure, not omitting the curious collection of versions in good Bishop Wilson's Bible. But as my object was, not to make a new version, but a just one, I have conformed it to our authorized version, wherever I could with propriety, and consistent with an attempt to preserve the poetic form of the original. For I conceive that, when two words or phrases will equally agree with the sense of the author, our ear is prejudiced naturally in favour of that to which we have been accustomed and moreover 1 As to the various readings of the Hebrew and early versions, I have noticed most of those which affect the sense, especially in obscure passages; though I cannot say that they remove many difficulties. But in this article I have to acknowledge peculiar obligations to a learned clergyman, who undertook the task of collecting them from the massy volumes of Walton, Kennicott, and De Rossi, |