71 



SULIDITV. 



SOLOMON. TIIK WI.slMiM OF. 



67.' 



under OASES, LIQUEFACTION or, win re will be found a list 

 gam which hare been solidified under cold and preaiur. 



SOLIDITY. For the signification of this word in iU strictest sense 

 the reader is referred to IMPENETRABILITY ; but, u the word ia fre 

 quently employed to designate a condition of material substance in 

 contradistinction from liquidity, or a gaseous form, it may in thin 

 sense be defined to be a state of a body in which the force of cohesion 

 between the molecules is such that these require a certain amount of 

 force to separate them from one another ; and, at the same time, they 

 are subject to small variations only of their mutual distance* by the 

 applica'.. :i of any quantity of heat leas than that which would reduce 

 them to ashes or convert them into fluids. The expansion of solids by 

 heat is noticed under HEAT ; see also SPECIFIC HEAT. 

 SOLIDS. REGULAR. [REGULAR FloCRSS.] 

 80LITAUI rs (the Hermit), an obscure constellation of Lemonnier, 

 which, having been admitted into the Astronomical Society's lists, 

 appears here. It is situated a little above Centaurus, near the tail of 

 H v Jra. There are no conspicuous stars in this constellation. 



SOLMISATh > ing, in singing, is the art of applying to 



the seven notes of the scale certain syllables, having no meaning in 

 themselves, but containing the first five vowels, according to the French 

 method, and the first four according to the system adopted by the 

 Italians and English. 



This art was practised by the Greeks ; but the six syllables now in 

 use are generally attributed to Guido d'Arezzo. These he selected, on 

 account of their furnishing all the vowel sounds, from the following 

 stanza of a monkish hymn to St. John the Baptist : 

 " I 'i queant laxii, 

 Jfrsonare fibris 

 Jfira ftestorum 

 .Tumuli tuorum 

 Solve polluti 

 Labii reatum. 



SANCTE JOAXNKS." 



In what is called the hexachord system [HEXACHORD], these syllables 



were found sufficient. When, however, that absurd method began to 



be disused, the addition of a name for the seventh of the scale became 



necessary, and Le Maire, a French musician of the 1 7th century, has 



the credit of having introduced for this purpose the syllable si. The 



Italians rejected the French ul, and substituted the more euphonous 



syllable do, which is also adopted in England. The syllables therefore 



now used by the Italians and English are as follows : 



Do, Re, Mi, Fn, Sol, La, Si, Do. 



C, D, K, F, G, A, B, C. 



To these syllables the English give the Italian pronunciation. 

 SOLOMON, THE SONG OF, or THE BOOK OF CANTICLES 



(D^^UJn "VQ7 ; "Aarfui riiv fapAruv, ' Canticum Canticorum,' our 

 ' Song of Songs ') a canonical book of the Old Testament. 



The canonical authority of this book has been much disputed. It 

 is now admitted that it formed part of the Jewish canon. It is found 

 in the oldest Christian catalogues of the sacred books, and in all the 

 ancient versions, though it is not quoted in the New Testament. The 

 objections to its canonical authority are now therefore derived solely 

 from its internal character, and may be summed up in the following 

 argument : that the book cannot form a part of Holy Scripture, since 

 it contains no religious truth, unless we interpret it after a fashion for 

 which there is no authority. 



The book U a poem, or collection of poems, describing in imagery 

 which is certainly warm, but to an oriental taste perfectly delicate, 

 the chaste loves of a bridegroom and his bride. It bears the name of 

 Solomon in its title, ' The Song of Songs, which is Solomon's ;' and is 

 supposed to be the only remaining one of the thousand and five songs 

 which we are told that that monarch composed. According to the 

 common opinion it was composed as an epithalamium at the marriage 

 of Pharaoh's daughter with Solomon, who are respectively the bride 

 and bridegroom of the poem ; but under the guidance of divine 

 inspiration it was so constructed as to form a mystical allegory repre- 

 senting the relation between Christ and his church. 



First, then, with respect to its date and author. An attempt has 

 been made, supported by Kennicott, Eichhorn, Jahu,and Rosenmiiller, 

 to prove the poem later tlian the Babylonish captivity, but Kw.-iM. 

 an excellent judge, and De Wette, agree in referring it to the time of 

 Solomon. The style and language are not more different from that of 

 the ' Book of Proverbs ' than might Ue expected from the difference of 

 the subjects. But the structure and contents of the poem are alleged 

 as presenting insuperable obstacles to the supposition that Solomon 

 was the author. Again, with reference to the bride, it is contended 

 that the poem itself proves her to have been not an Egyptian princess, 

 but an Israelite. This point is very strongly brought out by Dr. Mason 

 Good. On all these points the difficulty is much increased by the 

 highly coloured imagery of the poem. But the first difficulty may 

 perhaps be explained by supposing one or more changes of scene : 

 there seem in fact to be several. The question respecting the person 

 designed to be represented by the bride, it has been attempted to 

 solve in various ways. Dr. Mason Good imagines that the poem 

 describes a lone-match which Solomon made with some Israelitish 

 woman after his political marriage with Pharaoh's daughter. A third 



mode of explanation, which if adopted would cut the kn 

 Dr. James Bennett, who supposes that the p< m never had .my literal 

 reference at all to an actual marriage, but is purely :.n . 

 descriptive of the mutual love of Clirint anil lux church. Hut the 

 minute allusions, especially those to Solomon, which are contained in 

 this poem, are a most formidable objection to such an explan 

 and even those critics who contend most strongly for the purely alle- 

 gorical character of the 45th Psalm, maintain as strongly t! 

 Song of Solomon has a literal as well as a up 



especially Bishop Horsley's 6th 'Sermon.') The distinction however 

 between the two questions of who was the author and who were the 

 parties described, ought not to be lost sight of, as it too oft . 

 Finding the book in the Jewish canon, the presumption i 

 genuine part of Holy Scripture, and is intended to teach religious 

 truth. This presumption is strengthened, if it can be pro\cd tl.it 

 Solomon was the author, since we have at least one other book 

 in the sacred canon ; but it is not disproved even if the poem should 

 be found to have nothing to do with Solomon either as its author or 

 its subject. 



It is admitted that from a very early period the oriental n 

 have been accustomed to express religious sentiments allegorical ly 

 under the guise of amatory poems, of which the Gitagovinda in an 

 example. To this day the Egyptian Arabs, at their religious festival*, 

 sing songs resembling this, in which the prophet is the btlo\, : 

 and which are only intended to have a spiritual sense. (Lane's 

 'Modern Egyptians,' vol. ii.) Mr. Lane in fact gives passages from 

 these songs strikingly parallel to passages in Solomon's Song. > 

 is it denied that similar imagery is used with, a similar meaning in 

 other parts of the Bible (Psalms, xlv. ; Isaiah, liv. ; Ixii. 4, 5 ; Rom., 

 vii. 4 ; 2 Cor., xi. 2 ; Ephes., v. 23-32 ; Rev., xix. 7 ; xxi. 2-!' 

 also the opposite figure of representing idolatry and apostacy under 

 the image of adultery or whoredom. But it is said that in all such 

 passages the allusions are more distant, and enter less into detail than 

 is the case in Solomon's Song, and that in them the religious sense is 

 made so prominent that one can scarcely fail to perceive it. The first 

 part of this assertion does not appear to be sustained by fact. Any 

 one who examines the passages carefully, especially those which 

 to spiritual adultery, will find allusions inferior in delicacy to the 

 grossest which can be produced from Solomon's Song. The 

 condition does not appear to be necessary (as has been argued above) 

 to establish the allegorical meaning of such imagery, when occurring 

 in a canonical book: neither is the spiritual Bcn.se always so ol 

 For example, there is nothing in the 45th Psalm, except one or two 

 expressions which could not by the greatest hyperbole refer to a 

 human being, to lead us to suspect its spiritual meaning. The fact 

 that the 45th Psalm is quoted in the New Testament, ami th 

 Song of Solomon is not so quoted, is no objection to this view of the 

 subject, for the quotation of the one sanctions the general principle , r 

 interpretation, while the silence respecting the other proves nuihing, 

 knowing as we do that the New Testament writers adopted the Old 

 Testament canon as it existed in their day, and that this Song v 

 that canon. Nearly all expositors, both Jewish and Christian, have 

 adopted the allegorical interpretation, though they have explain 

 allegory in different ways. The Chaldee Targum considers it as a 

 figurative description of the love of God to Israel, as shown in 

 delivering them from the Egyptian slavery, supporting and comforting 

 them in the wilderness, and bringing them into the promised land! 

 Christian expositors, from Origen downwards, have generally under- 

 stood it as descriptive of the union between Christ and the church ; 

 but some few have explained it in a different way. Those who 

 acknowledge its canonicity, but reject the idea of a reference either 

 literally to Solomon or figuratively to Christ, take its admission into 

 the canon to be a divine recommendation and praise of a 

 virtuous marriage as opposed to polygamy and concubinage. Tin 

 latterly the opinion of the most distinguished modern opponent 

 r;monic.ity in England, Dr. J. 1'ye Smith. Various opinions are held 

 as to the structure of the Song, the best of which appears to lie that 

 which takes it to be a pastoral-nuptial song in a dramatic form. 



(The Introduction* of Eichhorn, Augusti, Jahu, and Home; I 

 by Dr. Smith, Dr. Bennett, and others, in the ' Congregational .Maga- 

 zine 1 for 1837 and 1838; The Hunt/ of Svngi, by Mason Good, Loud., 

 1803; other UummentarUt in Home, vol. ii., part ii. ; Lowth's 7' 

 lions ; Hirzel, Dot Lied der Lieder, uder Sieg der Treuc, Zurich, l*tn : 

 Fava, La Canlica delle Canliche, Milano, IS 40.) 



.snl.O.MoN, THE WISDOM OF (209.0 2a\6/iuv), an apocryphal 

 book of the Old Testament, ascribed to Solomon, but man 

 written long after his time. It is not known to have ever existed in 

 Hebrew, and it contains Greek ideas and expressions which prove it to 

 belong, if to a Jew at all, to one of the Alexandrian school. There 

 are in it historical references utterly at variance with the state of 

 things in Solomon's reign, and quotations from Isaiah and Jeremiah. 

 Internal evidence would point to the end of the second or beginning 

 of the 1st century B.C. as the time of its composition. It is commonly 

 ascribed to Philo the Jew, but the style is quite different from In 

 genuine writings. It was badly translated into Latin before the time 

 of Jerome, who did not revise the version. The fathers of the church 

 considered it apocryphal ; but it wan pronounced canonical by the 

 third council of Carthage (A.D. 397), and again by the council of Trent. 



