And Saul said: 'Thus shall ye say to David: The king desireth not any dowry, but a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies.' For Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. 1 Samuel 18:25
This week-end I saw a performance of Handel's Saul in Glyndebourne. Charles Jennens's libretto* takes some liberties with the Biblical text, but in it Saul does send David onto military expeditions in order to get rid of him:
Yes, he shall wed my daughter! But how long
Shall he enjoy her? He shall lead my armies!
But have the Philistines no darts, no swords,
To pierce the heart of David? Yes, this once
To them I leave him; they shall do me right!
Wars are not just dangers, but also opportunities for profit and settling scores. Saul's strategy to get rid of David fails as badly as Micipsa's effort to get rid of Jugurtha fails. Recall:
Micipsa, though he was at first gratified with these circumstances, considering that the merit of Jugurtha would be an honor to his kingdom, yet, when he reflected that the youth was daily increasing in popularity, while he himself was advanced in age, and his children but young, he was extremely disturbed at the state of things, and revolved it frequently in his mind. The very nature of man, ambitious of power, and eager to gratify its desires, gave him reason for apprehension, as well as the opportunity afforded by his own age and that of his children, which was sufficient, from the prospect of such a prize, to lead astray even men of moderate desires. The affection of the Numidians, too, which was strong toward Jugurtha, was another cause for alarm; among whom, if he should cut off such a man, he feared that some insurrection or war might arise.
Surrounded by such difficulties, and seeing that a man, so popular among his countrymen, was not to be destroyed either by force or by fraud, he resolved, as Jugurtha was of an active disposition, and eager for military reputation, to expose him to dangers in the field, and thus make trial of fortune. During the Numantine war, therefore, when he was sending supplies of horse and foot to the Romans, he gave him the command of the Numidians, whom he dispatched into Spain hoping that he would certainly perish, either by an ostentatious display of his bravery, or by the merciless hand of the enemy.--Sallust, The Jugurthine War (6-7).
There is a further structural analogy between Saul and Micipsa. They both worry about their children's fate in the face of the popular rival. After Saul realizes that David has saved his life, he asks David to "Swear now therefore unto me by the LORD, that thou wilt not cut off my seed after me, and that thou wilt not destroy my name out of my father's house.'" (1 Samuel Chapter 24:18) David swears it. The brief scene in the Hebrew Bible has a structural parallel in Sallust's account of of the deathbed scene in which the dying Micipsa says the following:
I received you, Jugurtha, at a very early age, into my kingdom, at a time when you had lost your father, and were without prospects or resources, expecting that, in return for my kindness, I should not be less loved by you than by my own children, if I should have any. Nor have my anticipations deceived me; for, to say nothing of your other great and noble deeds, you have lately, on your return from Numantia, brought honor and glory both to me and my kingdom; by your bravery, you have rendered the Romans, from being previously our friends, more friendly to us than ever; the name of our family is revived in Spain; and, finally, what is most difficult among mankind, you have suppressed envy by preeminent merit.
"And now, since nature is putting a period to my life, I exhort and conjure you, by this right hand, and by the fidelity which you owe to my kingdom, to regard these princes, who are your cousins by birth, and your brothers by my generosity, to hold dear [caros habeas]; and not to be more anxious to attach to yourself strangers, than to retain the love of those connected with you by blood. It is not armies, or treasures, that form the defenses of a kingdom, but friends, whom you can neither command by force nor purchase with gold; for they are acquired only by good offices and integrity. And who can be a greater friend than one brother to another? Or what stranger will you find faithful, if you are at enmity with your own family? I leave you a kingdom, which will be strong if you act honorably, but weak, if you are ill-affected to each other; for by concord even small states are increased, but by discord, even the greatest fall to nothing.
"But on you, Jugurtha, who are superior in age and wisdom, it is incumbent, more than on your brothers, to be cautions that nothing of a contrary tendency may arise; for, in all disputes, he that is the stronger, even though he receive the injury, appears, because his power is greater, to have inflicted it. And do you, Adherbal and Hiempsal, respect and regard a kinsman of such a character; imitate his virtues, and make it your endeavor to show that I have not adopted a better sonthan those whom I have begotten."
To this address, Jugurtha, though he knew that the king had spoken insincerely, and though he was himself revolving thoughts of a far different nature, yet replied with good feeling, suitable to the occasion."--Sallust
John Selby Watson, translates ficta locutum with "spoken insincerely." This makes sense because Micipsa had wished Jugurtha dead. It also entails that Jugurtha had not been fooled by the king's stratagem; this is not impossible, but there is no evidence in support of it. So, I kind of like Handford's Penguin translation better on this point. He translates the passage: Jugurtha realized the hollowness of the king's words. This is more world-wise, and makes better sense in larger context. But it also requires comment,
The hollowness of Micipsa's words does not lay in the claim that It is not armies, or treasures, that form the defenses of a kingdom, but friends, whom you can neither command by force nor purchase with gold; for they are acquired only by good offices and integrity. (As Watson notes Sallust is anticipated in Xenophon's Cyropaedia, viii. 7, 14. [On Sallust's borrowing recall.]) Authority is ultimately secured by loyalty, that is, the opinion of those that follow the ruler(s). In fact, Jugurtha comes to experience the truth of Micipsa's words after he discovers the plot of Bomilcar (whom he executes): after this occurrence he had no peace either by day or by night; he thought himself safe neither in any place, nor with any person, nor at any time...He was indeed so agitated by extreme terror, that he appeared under the influence of madness. It is the start of his downfall.
Rather, the king's hollowness lies in encouraging, on the one hand, Jugurtha to treat his sons as brothers alongside the claim that there are no greater friends than brothers (not obvious to a Roman reader familiar with the Romulus and Remus story), while creating circumstances and incentives that make it clear that Jugurtha's sons are incapable of truly defending themselves and, in turn, are not loyal to Jugurtha (who soon kills them off).
If this much is right, then Saul, who belated (1 Samuel Chapter 26:18) recognizes his own foolishness (הִסְכַּלְתִּי), was no less hollow to demand an oath from David (to spare his childrens' lives) that he knew he would be unable to enforce. The outcome of the battle at Mount GIlboa (where Saul and three of his four sons die) makes it hard to tell how David would have acted if his companion, Jonathan, had survived.
Even so, there is a hint of the Biblical's position on the matter. After the defeat and death of the remaining son of Saul, Ish-bosheth, when David takes Jonathan's lame son, Mephibosheth,-- the only surviving member of Saul's family -- under his protection, David does so not to honor his oath to Saul, but in order to honor the generosity of Jonathan, his devoted friend (2 Samuel Chapter 9).
*The libretto is especially interesting on the role of self-command and envy.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.