Slate's Bizbox
the good word: Language and how we use it.

Who Gets To Be "Solomonic"?

By Bruce Feiler
Posted Monday, Aug. 27, 2001, at 11:30 PM ET

Though observers roundly disagree about the merits of President Bush's decision on stem cells, commentators on all sides do seem to concur on one thing: The decision was Solomonic. For some, like Newsweek, a Solomonic compromise seems to be a good thing, a deft political maneuvering. Soon, the magazine writes, "it should become clear if Bush's decision is a Solomonic compromise, or a cruel blow to millions of patients."

For others, like the New York Observer, a Solomonic compromise seems to be a bad thing, a split decision that leaves neither side happy. "In another corner are the worthies who praise Mr. Bush's wisdom, even though his Solomonic compromise will enable scientific activities they supposedly abhor."

Summing up the apparent views of many, the Rev. Christopher E. Burcham wrote in the Orlando Sun-Sentinel that, from now on, the president should "simply be known as 'Solomon' Bush!"

Bush is hardly alone in being compared to Solomon. The Israelite king has been popping up a lot lately as the paradigm of sage, if unsatisfying, political hair-splitting. A quick Nexis search reveals countless solutions to tricky problems being called Solomonic, everything from the South Carolina state flag to exhaust regulations for light trucks to Jerusalem. Norman Mailer and George Will have both invoked the term. Even Ken Starr pleaded with John Ashcroft earlier this year not to pursue an out-of-court settlement with Microsoft, warning against "a 'Solomonic' solution, the mushy middle ground."

The term has become so ubiquitous that it would seem to apply to any situation that presents someone with a vexing moral dilemma. This would seem fitting, as Solomon himself faced such a situation when presented with two women who claimed the same baby. The only problem: When Solomon faced this situation, he wasn't wishy-washy, namby-pamby, Clintonian, or Rove-like at all. In fact, he made no compromise!

To review. Solomon is the 10th of David's 17 sons, who succeeds his father in a disputed coronation to become the third king of Israel in the 10th century B.C. With the legitimacy of his reign in doubt (Bush-like!), Solomon pleads to God for help, saying he is a "young lad, with no experience in leadership" (1 Kings 3). Immediately thereafter, two prostitutes come to the king bearing a baby. Both women recently gave birth to a son, but one of the boys died. Each woman claims the living child. "Fetch me a sword," the king announces. "Cut the live child in two, and give half to one and half to the other." Faced with this radical gesture, one woman urges him to split the baby in two, while the other pleads, "Give her the live child; only don't kill it." The king instantly realizes that the woman who wants to protect the child must be the real mother and rewards her with the baby.

And now comes the most important part of the story. Soon, in what is surely a tribute for his bold decision, God rewards Solomon "with wisdom and discernment in great measure, with understanding as vast as the sands of the seashore."

So Solomonic, it turns out, should be held up not as a paradigm of splitting the difference but of using political maneuvering to flush out posturing and do what's right. If that happens, then the term can be used in the sense of its dictionary definition—"showing wisdom or discernment." But until then, we shouldn't dress up compromise as the art of Solomon when, in the end, it's just politics.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Bruce Feiler is the author of Abraham: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths and Walking the Bible: A Journey By Land Through the Five Books of Moses.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:


[Notes from the Fray Editor: It turns out that everyone has his or her own version of the Solomon story: we think interpreting it could be used as a personality test. We liked Rhoen's entry, because we agreed with it, and the other two below because they were so arresting, but there are plenty of others on offer. A nice comparison from Joan here: "Those who see drawing a line down the middle as the solution of preference are performing more like the ladies who lunch when they get the bill." Snapp draws a different timeline for God's gift of wisdom to Solomon here. All round, an excellent Fray, with a high proportion of checkmarks.]


The Solomon story always made me wonder "what were they thinking?" The divinely inspired writer of this story seemed to have an incredibly unique situation in that there was a woman who claimed (before a king at court no less) that the baby was hers, then sat there like a brain-dead bump on a log when the king threatened to slice the child in half. What kind of childish fantasy world did this biblical scribe live in if he thinks that only the true mother would protest such a treatment? Both of them would have been screaming like banshees. The point of the story may have been to promote asking God for inspired wisdom and guidance, but this example of wise thinking can only impress tiny little children. I will stick to the Psalms (the non-smiting-my-enemies ones), thank you very much.

--Rhoen

(To reply, click here.)


"The king instantly realizes that the woman who wants to protect the child must be the real mother and rewards her with the baby."

This reading is not exactly right. Solomon realized who the real mother was earlier in the story. If you notice, when the mothers are telling how the child died, one keeps saying "her baby is dead, and mine is alive," while the other mother's refrain is the opposite: "My baby is alive and hers is dead."

According to Rashi, the 11th century bible commentator, Solomon noticed the uneven emphasis and understood what it meant: one mother, the fake, was more concerned with convincing the king that her rival's child had died. Solomon then used the trick with the sword to bring out what he had already realized.

Using a fear tactic is not Solomonic wisdom. The story illustrates Solomon's wisdom by showing how he understood the meaning behind what he was told.

--Brett Bekritsky

(To reply, click here.)


The sliced baby plan could also be seen as a dread warning to Solomon's opponents. Solomon's legitimacy was still in question at the time of the baby cutting episode, with a more senior son (Or something, its been a while since I slogged through Kings I + II) claiming the throne as well. So we can read the parable (which I suspect he had paraded around) as follows
a) Baby = Israel
b) False Mother = Solomon
c) Real Mother = The other guy

Hence Solomon would rather kill Israel with a sword, bisecting it etc, than have the other guy get hold of it, the other guy should just give it up.

I don't know if this is Bush-like, but the sinister power or mayhem message seems right in line with Bush II's approach to the presidency.

--8

(To reply, click here.)

 (8/29)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Assessing Sarah Palin
| Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, John Podesta and others weigh in.
Colbert King: She's No HillaryEditorial: Is She Ready for This?
PLUS » PostPartisan: Quick Takes from Opinions