Hincmar of Rheims' allegorical commentary on Song of Songs 3:9-11, interpreting Solomon's couch as the Church united with Christ, written as spiritual counsel for Charles the Bald's Carolingian court. The text combines patristic exegesis with political theology, exploring ecclesiological symbolism through cedar wood (faithful souls), silver pillars (apostolic teaching), and the sixty warriors (defenders of the faith), while developing early concepts of purgatorial purification and Christian kingship.

Historical Context of the Text

The Explanatio in Ferculum Salomonis (“Explanation of Solomon’s Couch”) is a Carolingian-era exegetical work dating to the mid-9th century. It was composed in the context of the Frankish church under Hincmar of Rheims (806–882), a towering figure of that age. Hincmar served as Archbishop of Rheims and advisor to King Charles the Bald, navigating theological controversies (like predestination and Trinitarian debates) and political turmoil in the waning unity of Charlemagne’s empire. The Explanatio specifically interprets a passage from the Song of Songs (Song 3:9–11), often referred to as Lectus Salomonis or Solomon’s bridal palanquin/couch, which medieval exegetes read allegorically. Hincmar’s era placed great emphasis on using biblical exegesis for moral and political instruction of Christian rulers; indeed, the Explanatio was likely intended as spiritual counsel for the Carolingian court, possibly linked to Charles the Bald’s coronation or education.

In Carolingian intellectual life, monastic scholars frequently expounded the Song of Songs allegorically, seeing in the love poetry an encrypted theology of Christ and the Church. Hincmar’s contribution fits into this tradition, drawing on earlier Fathers (like Origen, Ambrose, and Bede) while addressing contemporary concerns such as church unity and the king’s role in a Christian realm. The commentary was probably written between 853 and 856, as Hincmar prepared guidance for King Charles amid ecclesiastical reforms. It accompanied a now-lost Latin poem, In Ferculum Salomonis, which Hincmar had composed for the king around the same time.

Authorship and Attribution

The work is traditionally attributed to Hincmar of Rheims, and modern scholarship confirms Hincmar’s authorship. Internally, the commentary’s content and style align with Hincmar’s known writings, and it appears in Hincmar’s collected works (printed in Migne, Patrologia Latina vol. 125). Notably, Hincmar wrote not only this prose exposition but also the Ferculum Salomonis poem it explains. The poem itself was an elaborate acrostic “carmen figuratum” – a shaped or patterned poem – dedicated to Charles the Bald. Only fragments of the poem survive (some lines were later discovered by scholars in a Vercelli manuscript, and a few verses are cited by a 12th-century writer).

There has been little debate over Hincmar’s authorship, given the explicit attribution in manuscripts and early editions. In the 17th century, Jacques Sirmond published the text from a now-lost manuscript, and J.-P. Migne reprinted Sirmond’s edition in the 19th century (PL 125, cols. 817–834). Medieval catalogues sometimes listed the Explanatio anonymously or as a fragment, perhaps not realizing it was Hincmar’s; for example, a Mont Saint-Michel catalogue (c.1100s) simply noted an “Anonymi fragmentum” beginning Hoc regium ferculum… at the relevant folio (Full text of “Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques …). Modern research by Jean Devisse and others firmly place it among Hincmar’s works, and even uncover Hincmar’s source materials and inspiration. There is no serious alternate attribution – Hincmar’s contemporaries like Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus wrote on the Song of Songs, but this particular treatise is Hincmar’s own.

The Poem and its Allegorical Imagery

Understanding the Explanatio requires a note on the poem Ferculum Salomonis that it expounds. Hincmar’s poem was an acrostic and likely visually arranged to resemble Solomon’s couch or litter (King Solomon in Bed, Archbishop Hincmar, the “Ordo” of 1250 … - jstor). This kind of poetic artistry, merging word and image, was popular at the Carolingian court (Chapter 5 Writing a Song for Solomon - Brill). Hincmar’s poem apparently described King Solomon’s bed (ferculum can mean a bier, litter, or couch) in richly allegorical terms, using the details from Song of Songs 3:9–11. Later readers found it “convoluted” in style (14.10.04, Lillich, The Gothic Stained Glass of Reims Cathedral), but its content was significant enough that in the High Middle Ages, the Reims Cathedral even included a rare stained-glass depiction of Solomon on his bed surrounded by warriors, possibly inspired by Hincmar’s poem (King Solomon in Bed, Archbishop Hincmar, the “Ordo” of 1250 … - jstor). The poem compared Solomon’s litter – made of cedar from Lebanon, with silver pillars, gold frame, purple cushions, guarded by 60 mighty men – to an ideal Christian kingship and the Church. Hincmar, as a churchman advising a king, imbued each element with moral or spiritual meaning, which he then elucidated at greater length in the prose Explanatio.

Theological and Exegetical Themes

At its core, the Explanatio offers an ecclesiological allegory. Hincmar interprets Solomon’s portable bed as an image of the Church (the Body of Christ) in which Christ (the true Solomon, whose name means “Peaceful”) dwells among the faithful. Early in the text, Hincmar explicitly states: “Hoc regium ferculum… doctores sancti designare dicunt Ecclesiam, corpus scilicet Christi” – “This royal couch, which the holy teachers say signifies the Church, namely the Body of Christ…”. This sets the tone: Solomon is a type of Christ (Hincmar even notes that Solomon was called Idida “Beloved of the Lord” and Koheleth “Preacher”, prefiguring Christ), and Solomon’s construction of the couch from “the wood of Lebanon” points to Christ building the Church from strong, incorruptible souls (likened to cedar).

Key theological themes include:

  • Ecclesiology: The Church is described in unity with Christ. Hincmar lists many biblical metaphors for the Church (kingdom of heaven, bride, dove, vine, sheepfold, city, tower, temple, Body of Christ, etc.), emphasizing the Church’s myriad aspects, yet fundamentally its oneness as the bride/body of Christ. This reflects a high view of the Church’s spiritual role and perhaps hints at Carolingian reforms to strengthen ecclesial identity.

  • Christology and Mariology: The true builder of the ferculum is Christ, and Hincmar invokes the Incarnation – noting that the Holy Trinity built the “true Solomon’s Temple” in the Virgin Mary’s womb, referencing Luke 1:35 (the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary). Thus the ferculum allegory leads Hincmar to praise the Incarnation and Virgin Mary as the means by which the divine and human are united (Christ being the product of “two natures in one person” born of Mary). Mary’s role is not the main focus, but she appears as genitrix (mother of Christ) in whose body the “true Solomon” took flesh, an idea tying Solomon (son of David) to Jesus (Son of David and Son of God).

  • Virtues and Spiritual Warfare: The sixty armed warriors guarding the bed (Song 3:7–8) are read as symbols of Christian virtues or ecclesiastical defenders. While the Explanatio text itself should be consulted for details, similar interpretations by contemporaries exist. (For instance, one source notes Hincmar sees the 60 as alluding to the 60 canonical books of the Bible or a fullness of doctrine, though Hincmar might also equate them to zealous preachers or angelic guardians). Each warrior’s sword could signify the Word of God or church discipline protecting Christ’s mystical body.

  • Sacramental and Eschatological ideas: Hincmar touches on the Eucharist and purgation of sin. In one place, he speaks of believers who have sinned being purified “as if by fire” before entering glory, referencing an early notion of purgatory. This comes in his discussion of the couch’s interior “paved with love by the daughters of Jerusalem” (Song 3:10). Hincmar explains that “alms and pious works” done in love adorn the Church and can help remit the stains of those who will be saved yet suffer temporary fire. Thus, the Explanatio contributes to the developing medieval doctrine that suffrages (prayers, alms) aid souls in purgatory. It’s noteworthy that Hincmar, a 9th-century author, is cited by scholars as an early witness to such theology.

  • Moral Exhortation and Kingship: Given Hincmar’s role as an advisor to kings, the commentary carries a paraenetic tone, applying the allegory to Carolingian leadership. He likely reminds Charles the Bald (and other rulers) that their kingdom must model the ferculum – built by Christ, founded on strong faith (cedar of Lebanon), upheld by the pillars of apostolic teaching (silver pillars) and the gold of charity, etc. The reference to the couch’s purple coverings and royal diadem (Song 3:10–11) gave Hincmar a chance to discuss Christian kingship. In fact, Hincmar elsewhere explicitly links Solomon’s crown in Canticles 3:11 to the honor given a Christian ruler by the Church. The Explanatio itself likely encourages the king to be the defender of the Church (as Solomon’s 60 champions were) and to remember that all regal splendor (the diadem from Solomon’s mother) is subservient to Christ and His Church.

Literary Style and Interpretive Method

Hincmar writes in the form of a Biblical commentary (prosastic exposition) but one closely tied to a poetic text. The Explanatio is essentially a line-by-line allegorical decoding of his own poem (and the underlying Scripture). Thus, its style is exegetical and allegorical:

  • Allegorical Interpretation: As shown, Hincmar rarely if ever reads the Song of Songs literally as a wedding scene. Instead, every detail – wood of Lebanon, silver pillars, golden couch, purple covering, 60 warriors, King Solomon, his mother, etc. – is given a spiritual meaning. This reflects the common medieval fourfold exegesis, especially the allegorical (relating events to Christ/Church) and tropological (moral) senses. For example, Solomon’s mother crowning him (Song 3:11) is taken to represent the Church “crowning” Christ metaphorically by good works, or alternatively the synagogue/beata Virgo crowning Him by fostering His incarnation – interpretations vary in medieval commentary, and Hincmar may touch on more than one. His primary mode is mystical-allegorical, seeing the Old Testament figure (Solomon and his bed) as a type of current spiritual realities.

  • Use of Patristic Authorities: Hincmar was known for piling up quotations from Church Fathers. In Explanatio, he echoes or borrows insights from earlier commentaries on the Song of Songs. For instance, Bede had written a homily on this same passage; Hincmar appears to appropriate some of Bede’s points (one 20th-century scholar noted Hincmar copies portions from a homily long attributed to St. Augustine but actually by Bede). He also might incorporate interpretations from Origen, Gregory the Great, and Alcuin. This makes the tone catena-like (chain of authorities), a typical Carolingian approach to ensure orthodoxy by citing approved theologians. Even so, Hincmar weaves the quotations into a coherent exposition aimed at his contemporary situation.

  • Language and Structure: The Latin is dense, with long periodic sentences and frequent biblical allusions. Hincmar’s style can be verbose, which later critics (like Meredith Lillich) found tedious (14.10.04, Lillich, The Gothic Stained Glass of Reims Cathedral). Yet it is logically ordered: he likely follows the biblical text’s order (Song 3:9, then 3:10, then 3:11), explaining each element in turn. The Explanatio spans about 17 columns in Migne (PL 125, 817B–834A), indicating a moderate length (perhaps 10-15 pages of modern print). He does not indulge in anecdote or personal digression; the style is that of a formal homiletic commentary delivered to an educated audience (possibly intended as a treatise or even a sermon for a royal assembly).

  • Mystical/Contemplative Strains: Although primarily allegorical, there is a mystical undercurrent. Hincmar describes the Church as the beloved bride and dwelling of Christ, which reflects the mystical marriage theme common in Canticles exegesis. Phrases about the “unity in faith incorporating each soul into Christ”, or the notion that love (caritas) “inlays” the interior of the couch, point to a spiritual theology of union with God in charity. In this sense, the Explanatio is not just a political mirror for princes, but also a contemplation on the mystery of Christ in the Church. Hincmar’s role as a bishop is evident in the pastoral and moral exhortations that permeate the text.

Summary of Contents and Key Passages

Solomon’s Couch as the Church: The commentary opens with identifying the ferculum (couch) as the Church united to Christ. Hincmar enumerates scriptural names for the Church (kingdom of heaven, bride, vine, etc.) to show its many facets. This emphasises that the Church, like Solomon’s litter, is built by Christ to carry souls in peace.

The Names of Solomon: He then notes that Solomon’s Hebrew names—Pacificus (peaceful), Idida (beloved of the Lord), Coeleth (assembler or preacher)—prefigure Christ. By this, Hincmar establishes Solomon as a type of Christ. Key quote: “His quippe tribus nominibus vocatus est Salomon, quia tota sancta Trinitas fabricavit templum veri Salomonis…” – “Solomon was called by these three names because the whole Holy Trinity built the temple of the true Solomon (i.e. Christ)”. He links this to the Incarnation in Mary’s womb, as mentioned earlier, highlighting a Trinitarian cooperation in salvation.

Materials of the Couch – Wood, Silver, Gold, Purple: Hincmar interprets the cedar wood of Lebanon as strong, faithful souls or saints who form the structure of the Church. He describes cedar’s attributes (lofty, incorruptible) as reflected in the Church’s members who have perseverance and heavenly aspiration, but attribute all their virtue to God. Next, the silver pillars likely represent the pure and solid doctrines of the Apostles and prophets which uphold the Church (a common interpretation in other commentaries). The golden or golden-covered seat he may align with charity or the wisdom of Christ that adorns the Church. The purple covering (Stragulum purpureum) he could connect to the Passion of Christ (purple being royal but also the color of blood) or to the royal dignity of the Church. Indeed, some medieval authors saw the purple as signifying Christ’s blood shed in love, which “covers” the faithful inside the Church. Hincmar likely follows suit, extolling how love and Christ’s sacrifice furnish the Church’s interior “paved with love” (Cant. 3:10).

A notable passage is when Hincmar examines “its interior was paved with charity (love) by the daughters of Jerusalem” (from Song 3:10). He explains that the interior of the Church (the inner life of believers) must be adorned with charity – the love of God and neighbor. The “daughters of Jerusalem” he identifies as faithful souls or church members whose good works of love beautify the Church from within. Here Hincmar inserts a teaching: if members of the Church depart this life lacking full purity, they can be aided by others’ works of love. He writes that some souls “are cleansed as if by fire” and helped by the prayers and alms of the living Church – a clear reference to an early concept of purgatorial purification and intercession, showing the mystical solidarity of the Church.

Sixty Valiant Men Around It: Hincmar interprets the sexaginta fortes (60 strong men, Song 3:7-8) as protectors of the Church. While the text isn’t explicitly quoted in our sources, we know from a related study that Hincmar imbued numbers with significance (Carolingians loved number symbolism). The number 60 could signify completeness or the tribes of the Church. He might have linked 60 to the 60 canonical books of the Bible (as counted then) or to an ideal body of clergy. Each warrior has a sword to guard against fear in the night – Hincmar surely allegorizes the sword as the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12) or Church discipline that dispels the “night” of heresy and sin. He likely encourages bishops and kings to be like those warriors, vigilant with the “sword” of truth to defend the peace of the Church.

Solomon’s Mother and the Crown: The final verse (Cant. 3:11) mentions King Solomon wearing the crown “with which his mother crowned him on his wedding day.” Hincmar probably gives a twofold allegory: in a spiritual sense, “mother” could mean either the Synagogue (Israel) which by its law and prophets “crowned” Christ by heralding His coming, or more likely the Church who is the mother of believers and “crowns” Christ by faithfully serving Him. Another layer is the literal application to Charles the Bald’s own mother or lineage – but Hincmar would stick to theology. He might say the coronation day (dies desponsationis) refers to Christ’s Resurrection or Ascension (the triumph of the True King), and the crown is His glory given by the Father (some commentators take the mother here as a figure for God the Father crowning Christ, which is less straightforward). Given Hincmar’s context of advising a king, he probably uses this to reinforce the sanctity of Christian kingship: just as Solomon’s mother (Bathsheba) crowned him, so the Church (mother of kings) crowns a Christian king in a holy ceremony – with the implication that the king must remain faithful like a groom to the Church, his bride. Indeed, Hincmar was heavily involved in developing Frankish coronation ordos (rituals), and in one of his ordines he cites “Go forth, O daughters of Zion…” (Cant. 3:11) to invite the people to see the king with his crown. This shows how Explanatio in Ferculum Salomonis fed into the ecclesiastical tradition of coronation theology, portraying the king’s authority as given and blessed by Mother Church.

In summary, the Explanatio moves verse by verse, giving such allegorical explanations and drawing lessons. A highlight often quoted is Hincmar’s line: “Ecclesiam… multis in Scriptura vocatur nominibus” – “The Church in Scripture is called by many names”, after which he lists those names, illustrating the richness of the Church’s mystery. Another key passage is his reflection on the Trinity’s role in building the ferculum in Mary’s womb, blending Marian devotion with Christology. Finally, his teaching on charity’s power to cleanse (alluding to a nascent purgatory doctrine) is frequently cited by theologians tracing the history of that idea.

Impact and Reception

The Explanatio in Ferculum Salomonis had a modest but notable afterlife. It was not as influential as Hincmar’s political or doctrinal writings, yet it left traces:

  • Medieval Reception: Hincmar’s immediate contemporaries, like fellow Carolingian exegetes (e.g. Paschasius Radbertus, Heiric of Auxerre), were also commenting on the Song of Songs. While there is no evidence that Explanatio was widely copied (only fragmentary manuscripts survive), it likely circulated in ecclesiastical centers. The presence of the text in a 11th-century Mont Saint-Michel manuscript (Avranches MS 58, fols. 120r–125r) (Bibliothèque virtuelle du Mont Saint-Michel) shows it was read in Normandy by that time. There, interestingly, it was appended to a collection of patristic commentaries, indicating that monks saw value in Hincmar’s insights alongside the Church Fathers. However, the Mont Saint-Michel copy breaks off (perhaps considered a fragment), suggesting it might not have been commonly glossed or taught.

  • Influence on Liturgy and Art: As mentioned, Hincmar’s interpretation of Lectus Salomonis influenced liturgical and artistic imagination. He himself wrote coronation liturgies echoing Canticles 3:11 for anointing kings. In the 13th century, the theme of “Solomon’s bed” is rare but appears notably in the stained glass of Reims Cathedral’s nave (bay 121) – scholars believe this was a direct iconographic nod to Hincmar’s poem and commentary, given Hincmar’s importance in Reims and the unusual subject matter (King Solomon in Bed, Archbishop Hincmar, the “Ordo” of 1250 … - jstor) (14.10.04, Lillich, The Gothic Stained Glass of Reims Cathedral). The window showed Solomon on a couch with armed guards, effectively a visual Explanatio in glass. This indicates that even 400 years later, Hincmar’s Ferculum was remembered (at least locally in Reims) as part of the cathedral’s heritage, enough to warrant depiction in the Gothic period (King Solomon in Bed, Archbishop Hincmar, the “Ordo” of 1250 … - jstor).

  • Manuscript Tradition: We have scarce manuscripts. Apart from Avranches 58, a few excerpted lines survive in a Bamberg manuscript (perhaps via another source) (Geschichtsquellen: Werk/2858). The full text was preserved thanks to Sirmond’s 1645 edition. If not for Sirmond, the work might have been lost. Modern critical work is limited (no dedicated critical edition apart from reprinting Migne). However, in the 20th century, scholars like Burkhard Taeger studied the piece’s numerical symbolism and its relationship to Hincmar’s known theology. Also, Maria Antonietta Barbàra in 1997 analyzed some of Hincmar’s sources for the Explanatio, identifying borrowings from patristic texts. This scholarly interest shows the work’s value for understanding Carolingian exegesis and spirituality.

  • Theological Significance: Theologically, Hincmar’s commentary is cited in studies on the development of ideas about purgatory (as one of the early medieval testimonies to purgatorial fire and intercession). It’s also referenced in discussions of early medieval ecclesiology and the relationship between Church and state. For example, historians of political thought note Hincmar’s vision of the Church (as the inner sanctum of faith) and the Christian kingdom (the external defense with the sword) as expressed in the Explanatio. Thus, the work contributes to our understanding of how Carolingians saw the integration of spiritual and temporal realms – the king (Solomon) must build and guard the Church, while the Church crowns and legitimizes the king.

  • Later Citations: By the high Middle Ages, the Explanatio was not a mainstream source, overshadowed by giants like Bernard of Clairvaux’s Sermons on the Song of Songs. Yet, Hincmar’s unique take on the Lectus Salomonis remained known to some antiquarians. The Renaissance scholar Jacobus Faber (Stapulensis) and others who compiled multiple Song commentaries for French kings in the 16th century did include many medieval glosses, possibly even Hincmar’s if they had access. Ultimately, its major “reception” has been in modern scholarship focusing on Carolingian biblical interpretation.

Manuscripts and Editorial History

As mentioned, the primary preservation of Explanatio in Ferculum Salomonis is through printed editions. Sirmond’s 1645 edition in Hincmari Rhemensis Opera Omnia was based on an unidentified manuscript (perhaps from the library of Reims or Navarre). Migne reprinted this in column format in 1852. There is no known surviving complete medieval manuscript; Mont Saint-Michel MS Avranches 58 contains most of it but possibly not the very end (it ends on fol. 125r). There is also an 11th-century excerpt in Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek Msc.Class.53, f.4v (a florilegium) which gives a snippet (Geschichtsquellen: Werk/2858), and an incomplete copy in Avranches 58 (11th c.) (Geschichtsquellen: Werk/2858) as noted. The Avranches manuscript shows that by the Romanesque era the text was treated as a continuation of patristic commentary collections (it comes after works by Saints Hilary, Isidore, and others in that codex) (Bibliothèque virtuelle du Mont Saint-Michel). This suggests that medieval librarians valued it enough to include in theological compilations, albeit attributing it only generally to an anonymous author.

Modern editors have not produced a standalone critical edition, but the text has been freshly translated into German alongside the Latin by Uta Ernst (in a 2012 volume on visual poetry), underscoring interest in the poem’s figure and acrostic. The combination of poem and commentary is a fascinating study in Carolingian poetic exegesis – an area scholars continue to explore. Some recent works, like The Song of Songs in the Early Middle Ages (2019), devote sections to re-examining Hincmar’s Explanatio, indicating its relevance for understanding the medieval approach to the Bible.

In sum, Explanatio in Ferculum Salomonis stands as a rich example of 9th-century allegorical interpretation. Through it, Hincmar of Rheims wove Scripture, tradition, and contemporary concerns into a tapestry that glorifies the Church and instructs the king. It illuminates the medieval mind that could see a simple verse about Solomon’s exotic couch as symbolizing the entire mystery of salvation – from the Incarnation in Mary, the building up of the faithful, the battle against sin, to the crowning of Christ and His ordained kings. While not widely known today, this work offers valuable insight into Carolingian spirituality and the bridal theology of the early medieval Church, where every verse of the Song of Songs spoke of the beloved Bridegroom and His beloved Bride.

Sources:

  • Hincmar of Rheims, Explanatio in Ferculum Salomonis, in Patrologia Latina 125:817–834.
  • Jean Devisse, Hincmar, Archevêque de Reims 845–882, on dating and context of the Ferculum poem.
  • M.A. Barbàra, “Su alcune fonti dell’Explanatio in Ferculum Salomonis di Incmaro,” identifying Hincmar’s patristic sources.
  • Burkhard Taeger, “Zum Ferculum Salomonis Hinkmars,” Deutsches Archiv 33 (1977) 153–167, on the poem’s numeric symbolism and reconstruction.
  • Meredith Parsons Lillich, The Gothic Stained Glass of Reims Cathedral, noting the Speculum article “King Solomon in Bed…” and the window inspired by Hincmar (King Solomon in Bed, Archbishop Hincmar, the “Ordo” of 1250 … - jstor) (14.10.04, Lillich, The Gothic Stained Glass of Reims Cathedral).
  • J. Deploige & M. Coupland (eds.), Hincmar of Rheims: Life and Work, which discusses the Explanatio in the context of Hincmar’s legacy (Introduction in: Hincmar of Rheims - Manchester Hive).
  • Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought (c.350–c.1450), which cites Explanatio (PL 125) on the many names of the Church.
  • Henry Beck, “A Ninth Century Canonist on Purgatory,” Amer. Eccles. Review 111 (1944) 250–256, citing Hincmar’s Explanatio on purgatorial fire.
  • Manuscript sources: Mont Saint-Michel, Avranches MS 58 (11th c.), fols. 120r–125r (Bibliothèque virtuelle du Mont Saint-Michel); Catalogus codicum (Paris, 1889) noting “Hoc regium ferculum…” on fol. 120 (Full text of “Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques …).