The view that the gist of the Song of Songs is the Shulamite’s love of a shepherd and her persistent resistance to the advances of Solomon, was first advanced in 1771 by J.F.  Jacobi, and is now universally accepted by the commentators, the overwhelming majority of whom have also given up the artificial and really blasphemous allegorical interpretation of this poem once in vogue, but ignored in the Revised Version, as well as the notion that Solomon wrote the poem.  Apart from all other arguments, which are abundant, it is absurd to suppose that Solomon would have written a drama to proclaim his own failure to win the love of a simple country girl.  In truth, it is very probable that, as Renan has eloquently set forth (91-100), the Song of Songs was written practically for the purpose of holding up Solomon to ridicule.  In the northern part of his kingdom there was a strong feeling against him on account of his wicked ways and vicious innovations, especially his harem, and other expensive habits that impoverished the country.  “Taken all in all,” says the Rev. W.E.  Griffis, of Solomon (44),

“he was probably one of the worst sinners described in the Old Testament.  With its usual truth and fearlessness, the Scriptures expose his real character, and by the later prophets and by Jesus he is ignored or referred to only in rebuke.”

The contempt and hatred inspired by his actions were especially vivid shortly after his death, when the Song of Songs is believed to have been written (Renan, 97); and, as this author remarks (100),

“the poet seems to have been animated by a real spite against the king; the establishment of a harem, in particular, appears to incense him greatly, and he takes evident pleasure in showing us a simple shepherd girl triumphing over the presumptuous sultan who thinks he can buy love, like everything else, with his gold.”

That this is intended to be the moral of this Biblical drama is further shown by the famous lines near the close: 

“For love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave [literally:  passion is as inexorable (or hard) as sheol]:  The flashes thereof are flashes of fire, a very flame of the Lord.  Many waters cannot quench it, nor can the floods drown it:  If a man should give all the substance of his house for love, he [it] would utterly be contemned.”

These lines constitute the last of the passages cited by my critics to prove that the ancient Hebrews knew romantic love and its power.  They doubtless did know the power of love; all the ancient civilized nations knew it as a violent sensual impulse which blindly sacrifices life to attain its object.  The ancient Hindoos embodied their idea of irresistible power in the force and fury of an amorous elephant.  Among animals in general, love is even stronger than death.  Male animals of most species engage in deadly combat for the females.  “For most