![quaeque ipsa miserrima vidi quaeque ipsa miserrima vidi](https://img.shoplineapp.com/media/image_clips/5a8f7bea72fdc010b2004833/large.jpg)
But he is at great pains to explain every sensual detail of the poem in terms of the relationship between Christ (the Bridegroom) and the Church (the Bride). 12ĥ Origen probably did not use a knife to be “rid of the molestations of flesh and blood” merely in order that he might read the Song in peace. On this account, then, I warn and counsel everyone who is not yet rid of the molestations of flesh and blood, nor has withdrawn from the inclinations of the physical, to regulate themselves by entirely abstaining from the reading of this book.
#QUAEQUE IPSA MISERRIMA VIDI HOW TO#
One who does not know how to listen to the language of love with pure and chaste ears will distort what he hears and turn from the inner man to the outer man, and shall be converted from the spirit to the flesh nourishing concupiscence and carnality within himself, brought to carnal lust by reason of the Scriptures. 12 Audire enim pure et castis auribus amoris nomina nesciens, ab interiore homine ad exteriorem et car (.).It speaks of the desire and the joy of love, of law and covenant, the fear and worship of God, or sin and forgiveness”. As Zhang Longxi describes it: “he language of the Song of Songs is the secular language of love. It is wholly without disapproval and judgment, frank in its depiction of passion, and absolutely uninterested in a world beyond love-not only is God not discussed, 7 neither is the relationship of Israel to its religious traditions or the surrounding nations. 5 The Song looks back to details of city life and attitudes about relations between the sexes that reflect the Jerusalem of Solomon’s time, as well as the Jerusalem of the Hellenistic period, 6 testifying to the power of love and desire, even staging a sex scene between its male and female lovers. Segal argues, “a collection of love poetry of a varied character” preserved by “oral transmission through the generations”, 4 a collection written in a popular, rather than classical Hebrew, a Mishnaic Hebrew more like Aramaic than the Hebrew of the prophets. 3 Likely written down between 400 and 100 BCE, it may be, as M.
![quaeque ipsa miserrima vidi quaeque ipsa miserrima vidi](https://img.shoplineapp.com/media/image_clips/5e26f5a17273b63135f592d1/original.png)
C (.)Ģ Gerson Cohen suggests that “while the Song of Songs may contain very ancient strata, the work as we have it now cannot have been completed before the Macedonian conquest of the Near East and rise of the Hellenistic culture”. “The Letter or the Spirit: The Song of Songs, Allegoresis, and the Book of Poetry”. 7 The only mention of the deity is embedded in the term ( shalhevetyah ) in 8:6, which literally trans (.).The method and date of composition of the Song is a matter of ongoing controversy, a (.) “The Song of Songs and the Jewish Religious Mentality”.
![quaeque ipsa miserrima vidi quaeque ipsa miserrima vidi](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fGZ3aCil9oc/TepjAVyC4MI/AAAAAAAABdQ/2TRKi4v7TlI/s1600/IT.jpg)
Traditionally dated to sometime around 950 BCE, the Song has a complicated textual history. One of the most powerfully erotic, celebratory, and secular love poems in all the world’s literature, the Song of Songs (, or Shir ha-Shirim ) has endured nearly two thousand years of interpretation that attempts to tame it and explain it away.
![quaeque ipsa miserrima vidi quaeque ipsa miserrima vidi](https://basesrecoverycenter.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/celiaKelly-310x370.jpg)
However far the interpreters alter the text ( the Rabbinic and Christian “spiritual” interpretations of the clearly erotic Song of Songs), they must claim to be reading off a sense that is already there. He claims to be only making it intelligible, by disclosing its true meaning. The interpreter, without actually erasing or rewriting the text, is altering it. Interpretation is a radical strategy for conserving an old text, which is thought too precious to repudiate, by revamping it. The situation is that for some reason a text has become unacceptable yet it cannot be discarded. Interpretation presupposes a discrepancy between the clear meaning of the text and the demands of (later) readers. Against Interpretation : And Other Essays (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013), (.)