Interpretations of Love Poems in the Song of Songs and the Book of Songs: A Case Study of Song of Songs 8:5-7 and “Fishhawk”

Interpretation of the Song of Songs

　　The Song of Songs, with its explicit expressions of male and female love, is seldom preached from the pulpit; however, it is widely sung at weddings, celebrations, and feasts within Israeli culture, revealing a stark contrast. Historically, there have been two opposing interpretations of the Song of Songs: allegorical and natural. The debate over which interpretation is correct remains a matter of perspective, which cannot be fully covered in this article. The focus here is on interpretative questions arising from the Song of Songs 8:5-7a, which is the climactic part of the book.

Reading Song of Songs 8:5-7a

⁵ Who is that coming up from the wilderness,
leaning on her beloved?

Under the apple tree, I awakened you.
There your mother was in labor with you;
there she who bore you was in labor.

⁶ Set me as a seal upon your heart,
as a seal upon your arm,
for love is strong as death,
jealousy is fierce as the grave.
Its flashes are flashes of fire,
the very flame of the LORD.
⁷ Many waters cannot quench love,
neither can floods drown it. (ESV)

　　These verses tightly intertwine themes of love, life, and death, which are inseparable. Why is love always entangled with life and death? That is because love is the most intense human emotion and death represents the end of life; to express the most intense emotions, it requires comparing them to these intense and important moments.

　　Verse 5 shows a woman’s expression of love for a man, even in the erotic overtones (scent of the apple tree). Here, the pain of childbirth in particular is mentioned. Then, in verse 6, the woman asks the man to possess her completely as a seal on his heart and his arm. Complete possession is mutual; if a person says, “I am your wife,” it means that they cannot have another wife. The seal has a second meaning. At that time, it was widely popular to mark tombs with seals, which would allow the deceased to enter the netherworld. This is akin to an identity card for the underworld. The seal here also can represent the continuation of one’s status in life, especially the status of being spouse, beyond death.

　　Immediately following is the most famous line in the Song of Songs—“love is strong as death,” which intertwines the images of love and death in a profoundly moving way. According to feminist biblical scholar F. Scott Spencer, “[L]ove proves to be the most worthy match for death, thereby redeeming our fragile existence with meaning, fulfillment, rapture and transcendence.” ¹

　　The next line, “jealousy is fierce as the grave,” is also translated as “its jealousy unyielding as the grave” in the NIV. Does “jealousy” here refer to the jealousy and exclusivity in love? Or does it carry any other meaning? In his commentary on the Song of Songs, Tremper Longman III says, “There are only two relationships described in the Bible where jealousy is a potentially appropriate reaction: the divine-human relationship and the marriage relationship.” ² Jealousy in these two types of relationships can be so intense that it can be unparalleled, and it is largely for the purpose of maintaining and protecting the relationship.

　　Tracing the origin of the terms “death” and “flashes of fire” in verse 6, related etymologies show a link to the god of death Mot, and the god of war and plague Reshep in Ugaritic mythology. “The very flame of the LORD” is also translated as “a mighty flame” in the NIV, both being accurate in rendition as the suffix “yah” of the term can be interpreted both as shorthand for the divine name and simply as a superlative describing the intensity of the fire. If both meanings are to be included, it can even be translated as “an Almighty flame.” The “many waters” and “floods” in verse 7 are also related to the conflict between the god of order and the personified chaos in Ugaritic and Mesopotamian myths, with the ravaging floods directly associated with death. Here, the power of love is shown to surpass death and the gods, gripping the lovers as firmly as the grave or Sheol. Love is so intense that only “death” seems adequate to express it.

Natural or Allegorical Interpretation?

　　The question then arises: how should these three verses be interpreted? Should we use a natural approach or an allegorical approach? The Studium Biblicum Version of the Catholic Bible notes in its preface to the Song of Songs that the Second Council of Constantinople rejected the idea that the Song of Songs is a collection of poems celebrating the love between men and women. But this statement is not accurate as the Council denied a proposal made by a local member, the details of which are unclear. Historically, most of the commentators who insisted on an allegorical approach were not negative toward a simpler interpretation. The Jewish Targum interprets the content of the Song of Songs as describing the relationship between Yahweh and Israel; Martin Luther sees it as depicting the relationship between God and the state and government; and the notes in the seventeenth-century Dutch Calvinist Bible version Statenbijbel naturally assume it to be describing the relationship between Christ the bridegroom and the Church the bride. The perspectives of Luther and the Statenbijbel notes, however, cannot be taken as interpretations, but as applications of the text, or, at most, they can be considered typology.

　　In his commentary on the Song of Songs, Robert W. Jenson acknowledges that modern scholars consider the text to be about human love based on its genre and language and that it was not until later that it was interpreted allegorically to fit the canon. On the other hand, when discussing verses 6 and 7 in chapter 8, he suggests, “One poem … almost compels us to suppose that the poet did intend at least this one of the poems to be about both human lovers with each other and God with Israel; for we will see that in this passage the boundary between a secular reading and a theological reading amounts to no more than the difference between alternative resolutions of a play with mythic names that can hardly be accidental.” ³

　　Actually, it is not very difficult for modern readers to embrace both natural and allegorical interpretations simultaneously. The author(s) of the Song of Songs, familiar with the myths, religions, and literary forms of Israel and its neighbors (primarily Canaanites), used purely Hebrew language and imagery. On this basis, it is entirely reasonable to imagine the Song of Songs as a secular celebration of love between men and women, with the authors naturally associating it with God’s passionate love for the people of Israel, using it as a blueprint or the source for comparison (“bi”) or affective image (“xing”) .⁴ This means that allegory could exist not only at an interpretive level (text → interpretation) but also at the creative level (author → text) This, in a sense, can also serve as a kind of footnote to 1 John 4:19: “We love because he first loved us.”

Interpretation of the Book of Songs

　　The Book of Songs (Shijing), also known as the Classic of Poetry, is one of the earliest classic books in Chinese literature. The ancient commentaries on the Book of Songs are the Mao Poetry (Mao shi), the Lu Poetry (Lu shi), the Qi Poetry (Qi shi), and the Han Poetry (Han shi), all compiled in the Han Dynasty. The Mao Poetry was annotated and passed down by Mao Heng of Lu, and the others, collectively known as Three Schools’ Poetry, were passed down by Shen Pei of Lu, Yuan Gu of Qi, and Han Ying of Yan respectively.

　　Both the Mao Poetry and the Three Schools’ Poetry were completed during the Han Dynasty. In comparison with contemporary readers, Han scholars enjoyed the advantage of being closer to the language, history, and texts of the original Book of Songs. However, it is still important to consider the following issues: first, if the claimed meaning cannot be discerned from the explanation of words and the context of the passage, then there is no “internal evidence”; second, if the events mentioned in the poetry have no historical evidence or, even if they have, cannot be related to the text itself, then there is no “external evidence.” Those interpretations lacking both internal and external evidence can be considered speculations of both Mao and the Three Schools’ commentators, and such speculations of the Han Confucians hold no more value than modern conjecture. The following analysis, which focuses on the first love poem “Fishhawks” from the Book of Songs, also confronts the interpretive dilemma between natural and allegorical readings.

“Fishhawks”: Allegorical or Natural Reading?

The fishhawks sing gwan gwan
on sandbars of the stream.
Gentle maiden, pure and fair,
fit pair for a prince.

Watercress grows here and there,
right and left we gather it.
Gentle maiden, pure and fair,
wanted waking and sleep.

Wanting, sought her, had her not,
waking, sleeping, thought of her,
on and on he thought of her,
he tossed from one side to another.

Watercress grows here and there,
right and left we pull it.
Gentle maiden, pure and fair,
with harps we bring her company.

Watercress grows here and there,
right and left we pick it out.
Gentle maiden, pure and fair,
with bells and drums do her delight. ⁵

　　From the words, it is clear that this is a poem about unrequited love. Modern commentators Cheng Junying and Jiang Jianyuan in their Annotation and Analysis of Shijing (Shijing Zhuxi) describe its theme as the imagination of a nobleman experiencing unrequited love. But how can it be considered proper to place such a poem of unrequited love at the beginning of the Book of Songs? For the Han Confucians Mao and the commentators from the Three Schools, it was intolerable—how could the former emperors “use this to smooth out the ways of husband and wife, cultivate filial piety and respect, enhance human morality, improve indoctrination and change (undesirable) customs” (Mao Preface)? If it is unacceptable to say it is “naturally” a love poem, an “allegorical” interpretation must be adopted. But then what could the allegory be? All three schools described “Fishhawks” as a “satirical poem,” while Mao described it as a “praise poem.” In A Compilation of Three Schools of Commentaries on Shijing (Shi Sanjia Yi Jishu), written by Wang Xianqian of the Qing Dynasty, Mao’s interpretation was even criticized as “hiding the satire and highlighting the praise.”

　　Let’s talk about “praise” first. It means praising “the virtuous attainment of the Queen Consort.” Thus, the “gentle maiden” in the poem refers to the Queen Consort. But what are we going to say about the feelings of admiration that cannot be erased from the text? According to Mao Poetry, the Queen Consort longs for a virtuous woman. If we read it this way, then “gentle maiden” could also refer to the person the Queen Consort pines for, the person with whom the Queen Consort cannot wait to serve her husband. Such a Queen Consort truly deserves the description “gentle maiden”!

　　Then comes “satire.” Who is being satirized? Who is doing the satirizing? This interpretation mainly comes from the Lu Poetry of the Three Schools, suggesting that King Kang of the Zhou Dynasty was criticized by many for waking up late one day. Some say the criticism came from the consorts; others say the consorts disliked King Kang’s late rising, and those staying around seized the opportunity to criticize; still others suggest that King Kang’s late rising was due to his indulgence in the Queen Consort, making other consorts, officials, and people all potential critics. If this is truly the subject of the poem’s satire, then what kind of language should we expect to see in the text? According to the style of Bai Juyi’s “Song of Lasting Pain,” it might be said, “The nights of spring seem all too short, our king avoids daybreak court.” One may argue that the Book of Songs predates Bai Juyi’s work and that criticism would not be so direct, making it as roundabout as the text itself to the point where no one can discern the critique. At that point, it becomes unconvining because there are far too many examples in the three hundred poems of the Book of Songs with even more direct criticisms.

　　Both allegorical interpretations mentioned above might not be valid. The discussion focusing on “praise” is far removed from the text and cannot conform to internal evidence. As for the discussion focusing on “satire,” it cannot even be called an allegorical interpretation but rather a search for hidden meanings. What is more, the Lu Poetry’s suggestion that the text indirectly refers to King Kang’s late rising simply cannot be linked to the text itself, hence lacking external evidence.

　　However, even if we abandon allegorical interpretations and adopt a natural approach to interpreting the text as a love poem, there are still a number of problems. A notable difficulty is the mention of musical instruments in the poem. It’s one thing for the consort to think of a virtuous woman while playing the zither or harp in her chamber, but bells and drums (“zhong-gu”) are only used in religious rituals. Wang Xianqian notes that when the Han Poetry reads this as “gu-zhong,” instead of “zhong-gu,” it poses no problem then; “gu” being a verb, “gu-zhong” means “striking a bell.” Nobles could use instruments like bells and stone chimes in their chambers, not necessarily for rituals. How should we view his argument? From a negative perspective, if “gu” is a verb, “gu-zhong” and “qin-se” (“harps”; literally, zithers and harps) are not parallel structures then; in any case, we cannot say “qin” is also a verb, meaning “to play” or “to drum” the zither, can we? From an affirmative perspective, if “gu-zhong” is established as correct, it could not only resolve the interpretive challenge of “the consort thinking of a virtuous woman,” but also address the problem arising from the interpretation supported by Cheng Junying and Jiang Jianyuan of “a nobleman’s unrequited love”: whether it’s the consort or the nobleman, unrequited love is unrequited love, hardly requiring the grandeur of a ritual, while a young nobleman playing music at home to express his longing is perfectly reasonable.

Conclusion

　　In interpreting the Song of Songs 8:5-7a, we can embrace both literal and allegorical interpretations without any conflict—the two harmoniously coexist. Allegory can be built upon a literal interpretation (text → interpretation), comparing the text’s depiction of the love between men and women to the love between God and humans/the Kingdom/the Church. Allegory can also be included at the creative level (author → text), as we can reasonably speculate that the author(s) of the love poems, who were very familiar with the love between Yahweh and Israel in the covenant, intentionally used this as a comparison while writing about male-female love.

　　However, in reading the mentioned commentaries on “Fishhawks,” we cannot accept the allegorical interpretations. Whether analyzing the main idea from the perspective of “praise” or from that of “satire,” neither can be supported by the text. This shows that Mao’s and the Three Schools’ interpretations are just being “read into” (imposed on) the text, far from the standards of internal and external evidence. Thus, the theme of “Fishhawks” can only be the unrequited love of a nobleman that we naturally “read out” from the text. The allegorical “praise” and the search for hidden “satire” are products of Han Confucian ideology.

____________________________________________

¹ F. Scott Spencer, Song of Songs (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2017), 213.
² Tremper Longman III, Song of Songs, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 211.
³ Robert W. Jenson, Song of Songs, Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 7.
⁴ “Fu” (exposition), “bi” (comparison), and “xing” (stirring/affective image) are the three rhetorical skills mainly used in Shijing (the Book of Songs). “Bi” is a simile and “xing” is an image that is supposed to stir emotions.
⁵ Stephen Owen, ed. and trans., An Anthology of Chinese Literature: Beginnings to 1911 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1996), 30-31.