ate date finds some confirmation in the
fact that Canticles belongs to the third and latest part of the Old
Testament canon, and that its canonicity was still in dispute at the end
of the 1st century A.D. The evidence offered for a north Israelite
origin, on the ground of linguistic parallels and topographical
familiarity (Driver, _loc. cit._), does not seem very convincing; Haupt,
however, places the compilation of the book in the neighbourhood of
Damascus.

LITERATURE.--Most of the older books of importance are named above;
Ginsburg, _The Song of Songs_ (1857), gives much information as to the
history of the exegesis of Canticles; Diestel's article, "Hohes Lied,"
in Schenkel's _Bibel Lexikon_ (1871), reviews well the history of
interpretation prior to Wetstein; cf. also Riedel, _Die Auslegung des
Hohenliedes in der judischen Gemeinde und der griechischen Kirche_
(1898). The most important commentary is that by Budde, in Marti's
_Kurzer Hand-Commentar (Die funf Megilloth)_ (1898), where references
to the literature of the 19th century are given. To his list add
Siegfried, "Prediger und Hoheslied," in Nowack's _Handkommentar_
(1898); Cheyne's article "Canticles," in the _Encyclopaedia Biblica_
(1899); Dalman, _Palastinischer Diwan_ (1901), parallels to the songs;
Rothstein's article, "Song of Songs," in Hastings' _Dictionary of the
Bible_ (1902); G. Jacob, _Das Hohelied auf Grund arabischer und
anderer Parallelen von neuem Untersucht_ (1902); A. Harper, _The Song
of Songs_ (1902); Haupt, "The Book of Canticles," in _The American
Journal of Semitic Languages_ (July 1902); Scholz, _Kommentar uber das
Hohelied und Psalm 45_ (1904) (written from the Roman Catholic
dogmatic standpoint of allegorical interpretation, with a vigorous
criticism of other positions). No commentator in English, except
Haupt, in the article named above, has yet worked on the lines of the
above anthology theory. Haupt gives valuable notes, with a translation
and rearrangement of the separate songs. (W. R. S.; H. W. R.*)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] An argument for the allegorical interpretation has been often
drawn from Mahommedan mysticism--from the poems of Hafiz, and the
songs still sung by dervishes. See Jones, _Poeseos Asiaticae Com._
pt. in. cap. 9; Rosenmuller's remarks on Lowth's _Praelectio_, xxxi.,
and Lane's _Modern Egyptians_, ch. xxiv. But there is no true analogy
between t