I just reread Song of Solomon for the first time in over ten years. Despite using the NWT, which butchers most biblical poetry to admiration, I was nevertheless struck its beauty. If you haven't read it, it is about a shepherd's love for one of Solomon's concubines, and it evokes a delicious, aching, tantalising, desire - yup really. Solomon's authorial stamp comes in verse 1, and the impossible affair is never realised at the end - there's no ending, happy or otherwise.
If Solomon is its author (1:1), then he is indulging in some role-playing, and fantasising about this girl as if he were just a 'regular guy', which seems a natural desire. After all, a king with hundreds of wives and concubines might naturally want to invigorate his jaded love life, so he gets my sympathy straight away.
He uses a variety of 'rounded' imagery to describe her, fruit, hills, gazelles, circular shields. And he, the shepherd, is described with more weighty, rigid imagery like, palm trees, marble columns, cedars, and precious metals. Damn! This is hot. Better still, there is a strong vicariousness throughout, a sense that he could pick this 'fruit' and enjoy it, he could herd this fine healthy beast into his fold, or drink from the pools of her eyes, if he was allowed to, and more importantly, if he allowed himself to. And this vicariousness is also signposted clearly early on with
(1:9) "Look! This one is standing behind our wall, gazing through the windows, glancing through the lattices."
and later on
(6:7)Like a segment of pomegranites are your temples behind your veil
If like me, you still have a raging teenager somewhere inside, I will now supply you with the two more pornographic verses. But to keep you from damaging your holy bibles, I won't give the chapters and verses. Enjoy.
How beautiful your steps have become in [your] sandals, O willing daughter! The curvings of your thighs are like ornaments
I have put off my robe. How can I put it back on? I have washed my feet. How can I soil them? My dear one himself pulled back his hand from the hole [of the door], and my inward parts themselves became boisterous within me
Notice the addition of "of the door" into the text. You don't suppose this is an attempt to throw water on a burning, blatantly sexual metaphor. No. It couldn't be that. After all, without the addition of those three words, we would never have understood it, would we?
Well 'that's all I have to say about that' (F. Gump circa 1998)
philo