In this story, King Solomon is faced with perhaps his first real test of wisdom. Two prostitutes approach the king, both claiming to be the mother of the same boy. One woman cries out,
"To me, My Lord. This woman and I live in the same house, and I gave birth while she was in the house. Then on the third day of my childbearing, this other woman also gave birth... And this woman's son died in the night because she layed on him. And in the middle of the night, she picked her own dead son and put him in my bosom, and placed my living son in her's. And when I arose in the morning to nurse my son, Lo! He was dead! But then, I looked closely at the child, and Look! He was not my own!"
Then the two start bickering in front of the king. Now the king recounts what he had heard, perhaps feigning an air of deep contemplation and musing, and says,
"This one says, 'this is my son who is alive, and your's who is dead' and the other one says, 'no, your son is dead, and my son is the living one.' Then the king said, "Bring me a sword."
Since there is no fair way to judge, he jumps to the conclusion, in accordance to legal code. Since there is no clear winner, he will cut the living boy in half to satisfy both parties. The emphasis and callousness of his words are emphasized in the juxtaposition of "living child" and "halves," as if the child was inanimate (and thus already dead). He is of course aware "halving" the child would kill the child, though he will not say it; He gingerly shies away from, "I will kill" but "I will divide" in order to elicit an emotional reaction from the two women. When he pronounces this judgment, a woman cries out,
"Oh, my Lord, give her the living child, and certainly do not kill the child!" Then the other one cries out, "He shall be neither mine or hers; divide him."
Notice that the other woman uses the word "divide," agreeing with Solomon's judgment wily-nily, instead of the consequently word "die" that the compassionate woman cries out. Solomon, in his great wisdom, deduces that the compassionate woman is the biological mother and hands over the boy to her... Or does he?
When people read this passage, most are struck particularly by the lack of creativity on Solomon's part. They think, "I could have thought of that!" Could this short measure be the real limit of what is called in the concluding verse, Solomon's divine wisdom (hokmah elohim)? If so, it certainly does not seem to be all that impressive. But this is missing the real picture. What makes Solomon's wisdom so apparent is not that he has correctly identified the biological mother of the living child, but rather, he has identified the compassionate one who will nurture the child.
There is a deep ambiguity in the story over who exactly is the child's true mother, since both say the same story. While it seems most obvious to us that only his "true" mother would be "moved with compassion" for the child, the narrator systematically complicates identity in the story. The two women are intentionally nameless and lack any distinction from the other. Still, v. 26 does say "the woman whose son was alive said to the king because her heart yearned for her son..." but this does not positively identify which of the two women this was. Was it the one who spoke first to the king, or the second? Who was telling the truth, and who was lying? This questions, which is in our forefront is actually inconsequential. The child given to the one who was the most maternal, whether she is his biological mother or not.
Also, we are conveniently led away from the image that these two women are, in fact, prostitutes. Still, casting them as prostitutes was not merely a device to create a plausible setting for the story. Instead, their occupations color our perception to emphasize the moral twist in the story. The setting, two prostitutes bickering over a boy, is completely in line with the common low conduct expected from such women. What kind of woman would replace her own son, dead as he is, without grieving, in order to claim another's? Who else would have the audacity to take this matter to the king's court, and in front of him, bicker and rabble? Certainly not a woman of the court, but a low and immoral woman. But, when the climax of this story is reached, we see how one woman is cast in the best, human, and compassionate light, despite her expected conduct. The woman who agrees with the king acts in the way that is most expected of her, in a "prostituted" way, while the woman who appeals shows herself to be the caring mother, prostitute or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment