Abstract: In the 4^th and 5^th centuries B.C., the rise of philosophy challenged the authority of Homer and many philosophers, notably Plato, dismissed Homer and poetry in the quarrel between poetry and philosophy. Some other philosophers, however, particularly the Stoics, came to the defence of Homer by proposing the idea of allegory and arguing that the Homeric epics contained a spiritual meaning beyond the literal sense of the text. Similarly, the Song of Songs in the Bible was also questioned by both Jewish rabbis and Christian interpreters because of its sensual language and eroticism. It was again allegorical interpretation that came to defend its canonicity by reading the text with spiritual meanings totally different from the literal sense. Many poems in the Confucian classic, the Book of Poetry, particularly the “airs” from the various states, also needed commentaries and interpretations that impose moral and political meanings unto those text that look like love poems to establish their propriety and canonicity. Therefore, allegorical interpretation resides in the “minor prefaces” and commentaries on the poems in the Book of Poetry to argue for their praising or satirizing functions. Although allegorical interpretation is useful in defending the canonicity of classics, its tendency towards overinterpretation and particularly the politicized overinterpretation in cases of “literary inquisition”  are pernicious and dangerous. Wang Guowei has criticized the Chinese tradition for the lack of independence in literature and arts, and that is a lesson we need to pay attention to and never forget. From the hermeneutic point of view, we must hold that all interpretations must be based on the literal sense of the text and guard against allegorical overinterpretations.

Key words: canon, the Homeric epics, the Song of Songs, the Book of Poetry, allegory, hermeneutics, overinterpretation