7. Solomon's judgment. — According to his bio- graplier in Kings, lie was soon attbrded an oppor- tunity of disjilaying the wisdom whicli he liad asked for and received. From Gibeon he returned to Jerusalem, where the ark of the covenant waa now located in the tabernacle erected by David on Mount Zion, and there also presented otterings to J", and likewise made a feast to all his servants. AtJeru.salem he was forthwith called to pronounce a decision between two harlots who both claimed the same live child while each affirmed that a dead one was her neighbour's. The way at which he at once arrived at the trutli immediately made him famous, and has greatly helped to maintain his re- putation for wisdom ever since. It showed an in- stinctive insight into the workings of the human heart very remarkable in so young a man, and a keenness of practical discf rnment of a kind iuvaiu-
SOLOMON
SOLOMUX
Oils
able in one whose c-hief duty was to act as the fiipreme judge in all disputed casus throughout Israel. That 'all Israel heard of it, and feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment,' may well be be- lieved. That there was nothing miraculous in it may as reasonably be admitted. Innumerable examples of the same kind of wLsdom as remark- able and as well authenticated miglit easily be Kiven. Far more wonderful stories of a similar kind are told of Solomon himself, but they are entirely fictitious. The story, as told in I K :V--^, can alone be regarded as historical narrative. Josephus {Ant. VIII. ii. 2) seems to have had no other source of information, yet he gives a very distorted version of it. He represents the king as proposing to divide botli the dead and the live child, and the people as privatelj' laughing at the proposal as that of a mere youth.*
8. Solomon's policy dependent on Davids. — The task which fell to Solomon was that of building n\) H kin"doni on a foundation already laid and on lines already drawn. A reign like his was only made possible by what Samuel, Saul, and David had accomplished. Samuel, the last of the Judges, was also the first of them whose influence extended over all Israel, and was powerful enough to recon- struct the theocracy on a mon.-irchicat basis. Saul, by his struggles with the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and Amalekites, rendered comparatively easy the consolidation of all the tribes of Israel into a nation under David. It ■wa-s David, however, who made the policy of Solomon feasible, who indicated both by his counsels and example how it could be carried into effect, and who enabled him to start with a sulliciency of the means necessary to enter on his schemes of ambition and to revolutionize the manners and the ideals of Israel. Solomon seems to have done little which his father had not in- itiated : both imitated the doings and methods of Oriental despots.
9. His milit'tnj policy. — Solomon had not the genius requisite to extend his kingdom. He seetns to have had no military taste or talent ; and cer- tainly the glory of the conqueror lie but little sought and little won. He was content to main- tain and develop what he hatl inherited, and to abstain from d;ingcrous adventures. The weak condition of the surrounding States would have presented to an ambitious warrior-king a strong
* There [b no mention of the incident iu Chronicles. The •tory told by Ltioduriu Siculus of Ariopliancs, kinij of Thrace, in i^eneml cn:tr;ictiT rcscnit^lcs very closely tliat of Kind's, uii the death of the kinir of the Cinnnerians, three yoiinff men appeftrwi before Ariophanes claiming to be the only son of the deceuiied kinjf, without producing adequato evidence for the Imth of their claims. Ariopluines ordered them to hurl a lavelin at the corpse of their alleged father. Two cunaeiilcd, but one refused, and he was declared to be the true son and heir of the dece.i»e<I monarrh. Anotlier parallel is the account which buetoniuBgive» uf a Juduaneiit of Claudius (Lif:t'j( of ttie Tweice CamaTg). A wontan refused to acknowledge that a young man who claime^l to be her son was 80. In the absence of other means of deciding on which side wa» the truth, the enii'cror ordere<l the woman to marry tlie youth, and so obliu'ed luT to acknowle'lge that the latter" was her son. Most of the oriental parallels have a manifestly mythifml and fabulous setting. In •ome of them, however, i he resemblance is so cluse as to auioimt almost to verbal repetition. See Benfev's J^antuchaluidia, L BW-siM), ii. 644, also KUine Schriften, 3fd Abt. 171 II. ; hug. tr. of the 'Kah-lij-ur' (Triibncr's Or. Ser.)— the talo of Vi>sil(hii; Weber's IndxKhr Slreifrn, iiL 60 (also T. Steele's An Kimtcm Lone Sfon/, Triibner, is71, pp. 218 f., 24Sf.); Ilcinh. Koliler, G(JA, lb72, pp. 1210-1221 ; Fausboll, Buddhut Birth HlmUs, tr. by Uh^-8 Davids, vol. i. xiv-xvi ; and Jtev. de VilUtoire de lid. xxxviii. (1898), art. by Leclire, ' Une version cambodgicnne du Juifement de SaloTiion,' 17tV-lS7. In the last-mentioned version, % m'^thcr, her child, a female ogress in woman's fonn, and a Buddliist Solomon, 'the noble Mohosoth,' are the parties. To the questions whether the stories of the judgments of Solo- nion, Ariophanes, and Claudius are legendary or historical, and whether the judgment of Solomon originated in the Indian ■tones or had its origin in India, definite answers du not seem to have been as > et arrived aU