Patristic and Medieval Exegesis— Help or Hindrance?

ROLAND E. MURPHY, O.Carm. Divinity School, Duke University Durham, NC 27706

NEARLY EVERY BIBLICAL commentary gives a curtsy to the "history of interpretation," including the patristic and medieval periods. However, one may wonder why the debris of the past is dredged up, when it has so little influence on the commentary, and seems to be an implicit paradigm of what not to do. As an experiment e contra, we wish to make a sontage into the rich Christian tradition that grew up around the Song of Songs over many centuries. Representative figures will be presented and an evalu­ation proposed.

The history of the interpretation of the Song of Songs has been called a Raritätenkabinett (D. Lerch), and also a Leidensgeschichte (Κ. Budde, quoting S. Oettli). It is only too easy for it to become a mere list of names and a classification of theories that might be better left in oblivion. Such details lead to the mystification of the reader, and often they fail to do justice to the interpreters of the past. For all its good intentions, the work of R. F. Little-dale {A Commentary on the Song of Songs: From Ancient and Medieval Sources [London: J. Masters, 1869]) seems like an exercise in futility. It continues the medieval custom of the florilegio, a grouping of comments from the Fathers and other writers. But when one comes straight to it, the work is quaint, to say the least. This is nowhere more apparent than in the way in which it is used to juxtapose Christian tradition with modern inter­pretations in the commentary by M. Pope. One does learn a lot about Origen and Gregory, Bede and Bernard, but at too great a price; one is almost determined never again to read them. Our treatment of the history of inter-

505

506 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 43, 1981

pretation will therefore be more interpretive than factual. The emphasis will be more on the presuppositions and methodology than on content. We are frankly more interested in trying to get a handle on this tortuous history, to evaluate some of the great interpreters of the past, and to examine and understand their presuppositions. Indeed this often clarifies the presupposi­tions with which anyone reads the Bible today.

Earliest Interpretation

It is not often enough emphasized that the earliest interpretation of the Song is far from certain. It is sometimes assumed that the "history" of interpretation begins with the allegorical understanding of the Jews (the Lord and Israel), which was simply taken over by the Christians (Christ and the Church). J.-P. Audet ("Le sens du Cantique des Cantiques," RB 62 [1955] 197-211) rightly warned against this assumption. The fact is that we have no evidence of the earliest Jewish interpretation of the Song. Neither do we know the motives for the canonization of the book, although Solomonic authorship is commonly alleged. No exegetical tradition among the Jews can be drawn from the references to Israel as lily and dove and bride (// Esdr. 5:24-26; 7:26 [about 100 A.D.]). One is already centuries later than the final composition of the Song and the incipient recognition of its canoni­cal character. Neither do we know that a firm non-allegorical interpretation ever existed, despite the reference to Rabbi Aqiba's condemnation of sing­ing the Song in banquet halls (/. Sanh. 12.10). Perhaps he favored the symbolic interpretation, but we have no historical control over the evidence. While the targum and the Midrash Rabbah clearly support the symbolic interpretation, this evidence dates from about the 7th-8th centuries, even if some elements in it may go back to the second century. We simply do not know the roots of such an interpretation. One cannot claim that it is the prophetic tradition (Hosea 1-3) which guided the Jewish spirit in this matter, since the work is attributed to Solomon! We know only that there seems to have been some question raised about the canonicity of the Song. This may be inferred from the words of Aqiba in m. Yadaim 3:5, that the Song "defi­les the hands." In the light of this ignorance, which has been too easily glossed over, the question as to what was the original Jewish interpretation of the Song must remain open. Audet underscores the fact that the work is attributed to Solomon (along with Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), and he asks if this is not a clear indication that the Song was interpreted early on as wisdom literature, and hence was understood in the literal sense of love between man and woman. Suffice it to say that the official Jewish interpreta­tion of the Song came to be the allegorical, even if we are not able to be sure when this began.

PATRISTIC AND MEDIEVAL EXEGESIS 507

The earliest history of Christian interpretation of the Song is also clouded with uncertainties, corresponding to the situation of the earliest Jewish exegesis. The NT offers no help for understanding the Song.1 Hip-polytus of Rome is the author of the earliest extant Christian treatment of the Song. His work, written in Greek and transmitted also in other lan­guages, is largely fragmentary, covering Cant l:l-3:8.2 There is little echo of him in later Christian tradition. Because the explanation of Cant 3:1-4 is suggestive of an Easter homily, and there is a spirited address to an audience throughout the work, it has been characterized as an Easter Predigttext by G. Chappuzeau.3 The approach is by way of (salvation) history, and there is no reference to the relationship between God and the individual soul. Thus, the Song is seen as a prophecy by Solomon of the end of the Old Covenant, as Israel is replaced by the Church. This interpretation reflects a hermeneuti-cal principle of the NT and the early Church: the OT is applied in a trans­ferred meaning; Israel becomes the Church. If one remembers that this work is a sermon, it is easy to grant Hippolytus his right as a Christian to adapt the text to the situation of his Christian audience. It is not surprising that he interprets the "breasts" (the Greek and Latin read "breasts" for "love" in Cant 1:2) as the two Testaments. There is no discussion of allegory, but this allegorical explanation flows from his basic understanding of the relation­ship of the OT to the NT. He is surprisingly modern in the way he interprets Scripture from Scripture, when apropos of Solomon's litter (Cant 3:7) he calls on several references to "bed" in the Bible.4 There is more here about "bed" than the modern reader cares to know, but the method is interesting. G. Chappuzeau summarizes the hermeneutics of Hippolytus thus:

The hermeneutics of Hippolytus is very short: "through the earthly one must view the heavenly, and through the symbolic understand the spiritual and through the temporal hope for the eternal." It is the task of those "who love knowledge" to reach this understanding of the Scripture. The symbols of the Bible are "symbols of truth," that is to say in the Song, symbols of the truth proclaimed by Solomon and fulfilled in Christ, the "new grace of God."5

1 For another opinion, see M Cambe, "L'influence du Cantique des Cantiques sur le Nouveau Testament," RevThom 62 (1962) 5-26

2 See the Latin translation from the Georgian by G Garitte, Traités d'Hippolyte (CSCO 264, Scriptores iberici 16; Louvain Secrétariat du CorpusSCO, 1965)

3 "Die Auslegung des Hohenliedes durch Hippolyt von Rom," JAC 19 (1976) 45-81, esp ρ 46

4 This is noted by W Riedel, Die Auslegung des Hohenliedes in der judischen Gemeinde und der griechischen Kirche (Leipzig Deichert, 1898) 50

5 G Chappuzeau, "Die Exegese von Hohelied 1,2a b und 7 bei den Kirchenvätern von Hippolyt bis Bernhard," JAC 18 (1975)90-143, esp ρ 131 This article is most instructive for understanding the patristic approach to the Song The author also claims that it is false to view

508 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 43, 1981

Scholars have inferred that the Song had to be interpreted in a religious sense, and that the device of allegory, by which Greek culture had been able to reinterpret the embarrassing conduct of the deities, was ready to hand M Pope writes

Thus from the early days of the Church, Solomon's salacious Song, which at first blush tended to appeal to the pernicious pruriency of men, women, and children, had to be interpreted in a way that would eliminate the evil impulse and transform and spiritualize carnal desire into praise of virginity and celibacy and sexless passion of the human soul and/or the Church for God, and of God's response in kind This was accomplished by means of allegorical interpretation in much the same way that the Greek philosophers had managed to change the lusty gods of Homer and Hesiod into spiritual ideals Celibate Christian theo­logians were thus able by allegory to unsex the Sublime Song and make it a hymn of spiritual and mystical love without carnal union 6

But one may question if there is not more projection than history in this reconstruction

Another scenario is possible A basic question facing Christianity was the interpretation of the OT in the light of the Christ-event This is clearly the dominant approach of Hippolytus to the Song It is with Origen that the opposition between divine and carnal love appears But here also it is neces­sary to understand the hermeneutical principles of this complex man One need not deny that Christian views concerning sexual asceticism added to the desirability of a "spiritual" understanding of the Song But the actual course of Christian interpretation is not to be explained as a pathological rejection of sex Sex is simply seen in a different framework, indeed, it is hardly seen at all, due to the exegetical principles which we find in Origen, who wielded such great influence on later interpreters

Origen

Ongen's work on the Song is preserved in two homilies translated into Latin by Jerome (dealing with Cant 1 1-2 14), and in the extant three volumes of a ten-volume commentary translated by Rufinus (covering Cant 1 1-2 15) The basic hermeneutical thrust is the same in both The homilies stress the relationship between Christ (Bridegroom) and the Church (Bride), with only occasional references to the individual soul The commen­tary often presents the "historical" meaning, but the ecclesial and especially the personal (individual soul) meanings are developed at length

allegory as the method necessary to save the OT For the early and medieval tradition the issue was rather the unity of the two Testaments (p 142)

6 Song of Songs (AB 7C Garden City NY Doubleday 1977)114

PATRISTIC AND MEDIEVAL EXEGESIS 509

Origen's doctrine of Scriptural interpretation is found in many of his writings. One must keep in mind his own growth in his understanding of biblical interpretation, and also the manner in which different biblical books affected his hermeneutical principles. For our purposes, his general doctrine as enunciated in the Peri Archön, and in specific statements from the homi­lies and the commentary, can suffice.

One principle is succinctly described in Peri Archön (4.2,4): "For just as man consists of body, soul, and spirit, so in the same way does the Scripture. . . ,"7 Not always are there all three senses present (4.2,5), but the principle supplies the route of interpretation: "The flesh of the Scripture, this being the obvious interpretation, while the man who has made some pro­gress may be edified by its soul, as it were; and the man who is perfect . . . may be edified by the spiritual law, which has 'a shadow of the good things to come'" (4.2,4). Thus one can speak of the bodily or historical meaning, the psychic or moral meaning, and the pneumatic or mystical meaning. In his treatment of the Song of Songs, Origen does not give this precise rationale for his detailed exposition. But this threefold approach is ultimately at work in his exegesis.

This view enabled Origen to deal with difficulties that arose in his read­ing of the text. "For our contention with regard to the whole of scripture is, that it all has a spiritual meaning, but not all a bodily meaning; for the bodily meaning is often proved to be an impossibility" (4.3,5). It was his belief that the Holy Spirit concealed certain truths, "to hide them deeply underneath narratives which appear to be records of actual events" (4.3,10). Hence, "for ourselves, however, whenever we read of the anger of God, whether in the Old or the New Testament, we do not take such statements literally, but look for the spiritual meaning in them, endeavoring to understand them in a way that is worthy of God" (2.4,4).

This description of some highlights in Origen's general hermeneutics enables us to evaluate with greater understanding and empathy his exposi­tion of the Song of Songs. He is faithful to these principles and applies them with integrity and insight. At the same time, the Song provided certain peculiar problems. First, Origen is concerned that the reading of the Song not constitute a danger to the readers. He is aware of a Hebrew tradition "to allow no one even to hold this book in his hands, who has not reached a full and ripe old age" (Commentary, prologue).8 The one who lives ac-

7 Quotations from the Pen Archön are taken from the translation edited by G Butter-worth, Origen on First Principles (London SPCK, 1936)

8 Quotations from the Commentary are taken from the translation of R Ρ Lawson, Origen The Song of Songs Commentary and Homilies (ACW 26; Westminster, MD Newman, 1957)

510 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 43, 1981

cording to the flesh "will twist the whole manner of his hearing of it away from the inner spiritual man and on to the outward and carnal; and he will turn away from the spirit to the flesh, and will foster carnal desires in himself" ( Commentary, prologue).

Secondly, Origen discovers in Genesis and in Paul that there are "two men in every single man," the inner and the outer. And one must know how to differentiate between the things ascribed to these two men, in favor of the inner, spiritual man (Commentary, prologue). It is not surprising then that he can write that "the only laudable love is that which is directed to God and to the powers of the soul" (Commentary, prologue).

Thirdly, in a consideration of Wis 7:17-21 he writes that "he who made all things in wisdom so created all the species of visible things upon earth, that he placed in them some teaching and knowledge of things invisible and heavenly, whereby the human mind might mount to spiritual understanding and seek the ground of things in heaven" (Commentary, Book 3). Hence the comparison of the man to a young hart upon the mountains (Cant 2:9) leads Origen to speak of the biblical passages where "hart" appears and to arrive at various meanings of the "spiritual" hart. His use of the allegorical method here and elsewhere is motivated by the distinction between the visible and the invisible, the material and the spiritual. It is obvious that for him the spiritual is what counts, and allegory is merely the method that enables him to attain this goal.

One can easily get the impression from modern interpreters that Origen is arbitrarily allegorical in his understanding of the Song. On the contrary, he did recognize its meaning on a historical-critical level. Thus, he estab­lishes the dramatispersonae involved: the man and the woman (or bride and bridegroom, as he calls them), each of whom is accompanied by companions (the "daughters of Jerusalem" and friends). He speaks of the dramatic form: "For we call a thing a drama, such as the enaction of a story on the stage, when different characters are introduced and the whole structure of the narrative consists in their comings and goings among themselves" (Commen­tary, prologue). When he comments on 2:9b-13b, he even presents a certain mise-en-scène. The previous action (from l:2ff.) has taken place inside and outside a house. The man is frequently away—hence the theme of presence/ absence. In 2:8 the woman sees him coming to her across the mountains. His address to her in 2:13b-14 is thus explained:

"The statements that the flowers have appeared on the earth, and that the voice of the turtle-dove is heard, and that the trees have budded, tell us further that the season of spring is now with us. Therefore he calls upon the bride, who had doubtless sat indoors all winter, to come forth now, as at a fitting time" (Commentary, Book 3).

PATRISTIC AND MEDIEVAL EXEGESIS 511

But we can see Origen's concern in the comment which immediately follows: "These things seem to me to afford no profit to the reader as far as the story goes; nor do they maintain any continuous narrative such as we find in other Scripture stories. It is necessary, therefore, rather to give them all a spiritual meaning."

These words have almost an existential ring. Origen is concerned with making the biblical text relevant. One may disagree with his judgment as to relevancy and also certain presuppositions that he brings to the text. But he is surprisingly modern in his effort to make the text speak to the reader of his day.

Gregory the Great

A few centuries after Origen another important writer, Gregory the Great (540-604),9 composed two homilies that have been preserved, dealing with Cant 1:1-8. His influence was far greater than this modest work would suggest. An entire commentary has been attributed to him, but the material beyond 1:8 has been shown to be the work of a certain Robert of Tumbalenia (11th century). Gregory's influence was extended particularly because the later florilegia collected his exegetical writings and perpetuated them among such writers as Bede and William of St. Thierry.

In the prologue Gregory follows Origen in speaking of the sabbath of sabbaths (after the analogy of "the song of songs"; cf. the beginning of Origen's first homily). Like Origen he recognizes four speakers, bride and groom, the maidens associated with the bride, and the friends of the groom. Immediately the identification follows: The bride is the perfect church, the groom is the Lord. Ultimately maidens and friends are to be identified with the bride or church ("toti simul sponsae sunt, quia toti simul ecclesia sunt," 144.10).

But one can note this development in Gregory: The function of allegory is described as a kind of "machine" (quasi quandam machinam) that serves to elevate the soul that is far from God up to him. "In the things we know, out of which allegories are made, the divine sentences are clothed, and by recognizing the outer words we arrive at the inner understanding" (144.2). One must remember that Gregory's homilies were written for monks, and monastic spirituality is the natural target for his reflections on the Bible. His underlying vision is essentially correct. He recognizes that the Song speaks about the experiences of the lover and the beloved. He is very much

9 Quotations are from the Expositio in Canticum Canticorum (CChr ser. lat. 144; ed. E. Verbraken; Turnhout: Brépols, 1963).

512 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 43,1981

aware of this obvious meaning "For in this book are mentioned kisses, breasts, cheeks, thighs" (144 3) But his principle is that "by the words of love that is below, the soul be moved to love that which is above " It is due to the mercy of God that the soul is called to love by these means so that it may burn with holy love "Because from the words of this love we learn by what strength we should be fervent in the love of God" (144 3) As a Benedic­tine monk who became Pope, Gregory was particularly interested in con­templation, which is extensively treated in his famous Moraha in Job Hence the kiss (Cant 1 2) is a symbol of divine colloquy Gregory quotes Num 12 6-8 which describes Moses'conversation with God "mouth to mouth" ("os ad os"), and remarks that "the Lord as it were kissed Moses with the kiss of his mouth " Indeed, "to speak mouth to mouth is as it were to kiss, and to touch the mind by inner understanding" ("os quippe ad os loqui quasi osculan est et interna intelligentia mentem tangere," 144 15) Gregory's use of alle­gory, that "machine," is consistent and thorough in view of the manner in which he understood the Song "For sacred Scripture is a kind of mountain from which the Lord comes, to be understood in our hearts" (144 5) As H de Lubac puts it, "Gregory is a monk, and his is a monastic exegesis He popularizes the conception of the Bible as a mirror of human activity or of the inner man But above and beyond the tropology which he zealously cultivates, as a conscientious shepherd of souls, he still searches for the 'spiri­tual allegory' which will allow him to unfold the 'wing of contemplating '"10

Bede

The Venerable Bede (d 735) is an important figure in the history of the interpretation of the Song, not least because of the influence which he exerted on the medieval period His commentary was influenced by that of Gregory the Great, but not by Origen's work It is not surprising that his emphasis is on the ecclesial interpretation, and rarely on the individual soul Furthermore, he wrote a commentary, not homilies, and it is aptly entitled, "an allegorical exposition of the Canticle of Canticles" (Latin text in PL, 91 1065-1236) However, his importance is mainly that of a transmitter of the past His five books of commentary are sandwiched in between a refutation of the De amore of Julian of Aeclanum (d about 454) and zflorilegium of Gregory's interpretations of the Song The interpretation of the Song follows traditional lines Solomon described the mysteries of Christ and the Church under the figure of the bridegroom and the bride

10 The Sources of Revelation (New York Herder & Herder 1968) 50

PATRISTIC AND MEDIEVAL EXEGESIS 513

Bernard of Clairvaux

The memory of the Crusades, of Peter Abelard, and even of Peter ("the Venerable") of Cluny tempts one to tread warily into the "Sermons on the Canticle of Canticles" of Bernard of Clairvaux.11 Yet they are the final and great flowering of the approach to the Song initiated by Origen. Several points should be made about this unusual work. First of all, the sermons are based on conferences delivered to a monastic order, the Cistercians of Clair­vaux. Secondly, the monks were not all men who had lived a hot-house existence associated with a monastery. Many were quite definitively worldly men, former knights among them, who had served in the Crusades and knew what life was about. One can only admire the temerity and insight of Ber­nard to choose the Song for his text. Thirdly, the sermons are eighty-six in number, delivered over a period of eighteen years (1135-1153). Finally, they are conferences, not exegetical commentary. H. de Lubac characterizes very well this aspect, borrowing some words of the great Bernard scholar, Jean Leclercq:

Is it really possible to refer to certain commentaries on the Song of Songs as 'exegesis'? 'Rather than an ecclesiastical and moral explanation of the text,' they are 'equivalent to a treatise De amore-, the verses of the Song of Songs are little more than a pretext for the expression of a personal experience/ The author of such works 'has no desire to instruct, but simply to release his fervor and occupy his moments of leisure by ministering to his own edification.' The sacred text still furnishes the basis for thought, but is no longer what inspires it, at least in any direct way. To use the Augustinian expression, which is totally meaningful here, the text is merely the 'occasion' for thoughts.. . . And no matter how hard we try to establish the eccentricity of individualized explanations by judging them according to our own rules, can anyone dare to break the long-standing and powerful bond which exists between biblical exegesis and the development of Christian spirituality? Who, with any reading, experience or reflection behind him, does not sense how much would be lost, not only in form but also in substance, by the works of a St. Bernard, a St. John of the Cross, a hundred others, if we were to suppose that all biblical references and allusions could be extracted from them, when each was judged of little value?12

Bernard's sermons exercised tremendous influence in the Middle Ages

11 A critical text of the Sermones has been published by J. Leclercq, in volumes 1 and 2 of the Sancii Bernardi opera (Rome: Editiones Cistercienses, 1957-). An English translation of this edition is being issued by Cistercian Publications (Kalamazoo, MI). See also the translation of S. J. Eales, Cantica Canticorum: Eighty-Six Sermons on the Song of Solomon by Saint Bernard (London: Stock, 1895).

12 H. de Lubac, Sources of Revelation, 54-55.

514 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 43, 1981

and beyond They are the fruit of monastic, as opposed to scholastic, theol­ogy, exemplifying lectio divina, and not Sic et Non More "commentaries" were written about the Song in the Middle Ages than about any other book in the OT, from the 12th century alone we have some thirty works One can distinguish the scholastic interests of Anselm of Laon (d 1117), the mano-logical interpretation of Rupert of Deutz (d 1129), and the spiritual inter­pretation of Bernard and of William of St Thierry (d about 1148) There is an interesting contrast between the scholastic commentaries and those of the monks, the works of the latter are usually unfinished As J Leclerq remarks, they felt that they had said what they wanted to say about love and had the right to put down the pen 13

In the sermons Bernard demonstrates a wide-ranging knowledge of the Bible and of the human affection of love He is not the technical exegete, nor does he rely on the allegorical method (which of course is not absent from the sermons) He ranges far and wide across the relationship of the individual person to God In short, he is a mystic, and he writes for those who would use the Song for the purpose of knowing and loving God As he says in Sermon 16 1, "Sed nee Studium tarn esse mihi ut exponam verba, quam ut ìmbuam corda" ("nor is it so much my desire to explain words as it is to influence hearts") His words about Pharaoh's chariots and horsemen (Cant 1 8) will not attract everyone, yet in the midst of his explanation he says "I do not doubt that some of you understand what I am saying from your own experience " (Sermon 39 3) For him, the Song is the "book of experience" (Sermon 3 1) The greatest experience is love, about which he writes (Sermon 83 4)

Certainly honor and glory are due to God, and to Him alone, but neither of these will He receive, if they be not, as it were, seasoned with the honey of love Love is alone sufficient by itself, it pleases by itself, and for its own sake It is itself a merit, and itself its own recompense It seeks neither cause, nor conse­quences, beyond itself It is its own fruit, its own object and usefulness I love, because I love, I love, that I may love Love, then is a great reality, and very precious, provided that it recurs to the principle on which it rests, that it is kept in continual relation with Him who is its origin, and draws from that pure source waters that flow continually in greater abundance When God loves us, He desires nothing else than to be loved, because He loves us that He may be loved by us, knowing that those who love Him become blessed by their love itself (Eales translation)

13 The Love of Learning and the Desire for God (New York Fordham University 1961) 107

PATRISTIC AND MEDIEVAL EXEGESIS 515

Conclusion

This summary of the history of the interpretation of the Song has moved only too rapidly from Hippolytus to Bernard. It is left to the reader to fill in the interstices. The purpose has been to show how some of the great interpreters functioned—their presuppositions, their strength, and their limitations.

It is incumbent upon an exegete to evaluate the traditional approach to the Song, which this history of interpretation has pointed up. Does it have anything to say to us today? It can be read to say several things. From a negative point of view, one sees that several assumptions shape definitively the hermeneutical situation. When one starts with Solomonic authorship, one is onto an historically uncertain, not to say untrue, position which will adversely affect the interpretation. Moreover, the separation, not merely the distinction however defined, between a material or historical sense and a spiritual sense is ill-advised. One can no longer envision the meaning of a text in such water-tight compartments. If there is a spiritual sense, it must have some inherent relation to the historical sense. Again, the Christian perspective must not be allowed to snuff out the meaning which the OT text has on the level of historical-critical methodology. If historical-critical methodology is not brought into play, there is nothing to serve as a control on the reading of the text by Christian imagination. Finally, the limitations of the method of allegorical interpretation must be faced up to. If a text is written as an allegory, the method is appropriate. But the fact of allegory is to be established before the method is used.

Positively, the traditional interpretation supports the view, widely accepted today, that a text acquires new meaning as it lives on within a community. There is more than one level of meaning in a text. Both the Jewish and the Christian community of faith heard the Song as dealing with the love of God for humans. It matters not that this view was justified in part by faulty methodology, such as misplaced allegory.

This claim of tradition does not open the door to arbitrary interpreta­tion. One can still be critical about the vagaries of interpretation which have accumulated around the Song over the centuries. But one must deal with the fact that the steady interpretation of the Song in a given direction by the community of faith constitutes a serious argument for another level of meaning.

From the point of view of hindsight, one may add another considera­tion. The issue is not so much whether the Song deals with human love as opposed to divine love, as if these were two totally disparate things. It deals with love on various levels, and love belongs to both the human and the divine. If God is love, human sexual love must have some relationship to

516 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 43, 1981

him; it reflects and participates in a divine reality. Both levels of love are to be retained in the perspective of the Song. It was for this reason that the Song could so easily become a primer for Bernard or John of the Cross. They were able to detect in the themes of human sexual love, such as pres­ence and absence, elements that bore on their own experience of the divine.

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.