sulted in a certain awkwardness, but this contact with the ancient narratives is for us more moving than a scholarly dissertation would have been. Thus when we see David described as "He was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance and goodly to look to" (1 Sam. XVI. 12), under the banalty of these simple words we see Michael Angelo's great creation come to life, and we understand how it was that suddenly "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." (1 Sam. XVIII. 1)

This whiplash hit Jonathan the first moment he saw David, victorious from his combat with Goliath. Jonathan was standing at his father's right. His eyes are fixed on the beautiful adolescent Goliath had disdained, "for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance." (1 Sam. XVII. 42) Jonathan heard the harmonious voice whose almost-magic power would later calm Saul's somber furies. The effect was instantaneous and total: "And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." (1 Sam. XVIII. 1)

For a Hebrew like him, the soul was a solid reality, life itself, the breath, and the text marvellously translates the almost physical effect produced by the love come alive within Jonathan at that very moment: a living communion, an aspiration of the entire being, a breathing together of which the kiss will be both symbol and realization: "Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved his as his own soul." (1 Sam. XVIII. 3)

One thing that strikes concerning this love is, along with its spontaneity, its power to negate all the differences, all the reasons that opposed it. It is true that Saul's majesty had none of the splendor that later would surround Solomon in all his glory, but to the eyes of a believer like David, Saul remained always the Anointed of the Lord, the Chosen One, the Blessed. This religious aspect covered all that related to the king, and in particular Jonathan, the king's eldest son and heir. David later showed himself reserved and reticent when Saul offered him his daughter's hand: "Who am I? And what is my life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be the son-inlaw to the king?" (1 Sam. XVIII. 18) It is that this marriage is primarily a social and political matter. His friendship with Jonathan is something quite different; at no time do the two young men notice their differences. Jonathan, who is already a brave warrior (1 Sam. XIV), proud of his arms, is conquered in an instant by this little shepherd from Bethlehem, who accidentally shows up in the army to bring his three big brothers food (1 Sam. XVII. 17-18). In one instant the issue is decided-not in terms of a condescending friendship, or the sympathy of a great lord, but spontaneously by means of a solemn and definitive pact, of a true religious contract: "Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul." mattachine REVIEW

16

(1 Sam. XVIII. 3) There is no doubt concerning the religious character of this union: "for thou hast brought a covenant of the Lord with thee" (1 Sam. XX. 8). Furthermore, the rest of the narrative shows that even a long time after Jonathen's death David continued to consider this pact as sacred. For Jonathan it is even clearer, for he tells David: "And of the matter which thou and I have spoken of, behold, the Lord be between me and thee forever." (1 Sam. XX. 23) Would it be improper to ask why it is that the blessings of the Church, the instrument of God, are now reserved solely to love pacts between individuals of different sex? Why God should be only between those who are joined in that special pact called marriage but which does exhaust the possibilities of true human friendship? Two friends, joined in the strongest sense of the word, why should they not have the right to repeat the words David and Jonathan exchanged in spontaneous fervor: "We have spoken a word, thee and me, and God is between us forever?" That which the Bible reports in praise of two young men would today seem sacrilege and blasphemy!

The first, and very oriental, sign of this pact was the exchange of clothing: "And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle" (1 Sam. XVIII. 4); in brief, all that was most precious to the young warrior (let us mention here the contemporary exegete, Father de Vaux, who, in his "Bible de Jerusalem," page 89, states: "According to the ancient tradition of the Orient, the personality extended to the garments... In giving him his garments, Jonathan becomes truly attached to David."). For us, we shall merely note with joy that, 30 centuries away, love has always discovered the same humble means of expression.

The difference in social level was not the most important of the reasons that was to destroy this union. At the moment of the pact, Jonathan was Saul's eldest son and heir-but David it was that the old prophet, Samuel, has anointed future king of Israel. The Biblical text does not speak of the conscience problems that must have tortured David: the knowledge that, through choice of God, he, would take Jonathan's place. On the other hand, we know that Jonathan was aware of his forthcoming death and David's future role—but his love gave him only cause for rejoicing! "And thou shall not only while yet I live shew me the kindness of the Lord, that I die not, but also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house forever: no, not when the Lord hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth. So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David saying: Let the Lord even require it at the hand of David's enemies. And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul." (1 Sam. XX. 14-17) And who are David's enemies if not Saul's house-of which Jonathan was the eldest son! Jonathan thus detaches him17