.:„fVV7-

1 <

|.-v ^>.- 4.'..%;,,.-Kit
_____ -B- , * - ¦-*» ¦. f . Jr. .
1 * • * i^Tff 7 •*? ¦
1 » .•_;¦» . -W • t "jj ;,
i. j _ *!2r»* a^''*__f
w ¦ <W <_ '"'-*" : .< ... « f*"N i*s1

dpi

k * __!___W

\* -ft'

wTSi _* ¦*¦»' ? ¦¦"¦?f :*r

/ ¦ *

¦**. *v ¦J_____r '__¦ '

*J&U^ MEMORIAL^*
COLLECTION

Yale University Library

Reprinted from Tear Book of the Central Conference of American Eabbis,
1903-5663.
ASSYRIOLOGY AND THE BIBLE.
By Dr. K. Kohler.
We live in an age of strange contrasts. Wherever we look we
find a bold striving for new truths and a revival of old falsehoods,
great achievements of human love and violent outbursts of cruel
hatred, a wondrous progress of science and a tenacious clinging to
superstitious notions, a courageous assertion of manhood and cow
ardly, cringing servility side by side. Nor are those circles which
are expected to imbibe only the clarified air of truth and perfect jus
tice longer immune against . the contagion of prejudice, and the
scholar whose scientific pursuits ought to lift him to serene realms
of thought high above the passion of the multitude is too often
seen in these days contributing his full share to the general confu
sion of the minds and- the vexation of the spirit. Such is the im
pression created by the two lectures on " Babel and Bible," delivered
a year ago by Prof. Friederich Delitzsch before the Emperor and
Empress of Germany and sent forth with notes and preface in thous
ands and ten thousands of copies all over the world. Consider the
simple fact. An Assyriologist of great fame and originality, the son
of Franz Delitzsch, a Christian theologian and Bible exegete of
great eminence whose latter years Avere chiefly devoted to the de
fense of Jew and Judaism against \ale attacks by the anti-Semite, is
invited to deliver a series of discourses before an august assembly at
the royal palace of Berlin on the results of Babylonian research
in their bearing upon Holy Scripture. And how does he avail him
self of this rare opportunity? Far from being satisfied with the
simple yet highly gratifying task of showing what flood of new light
is cast upon the ancient HebreAV life by the Babylonian movements,

104 Central Conference of American Rabbis
and, how the highly developed Chaldean civilization, which is
by millenniums anterior to the time of Moses and Abraham,
furnished the Hebrews and their predecessors, the Canaanites,
with all the elements of culture, with all the material forming
the common beliefs, customs and laws of the time, he ventures to
make the most unwarranted assertions concerning the high moral
and religious standard of Babylon, obviously for the purpose of be
littling the Bible and casting a slur chiefly upon the Old Testament.
Somewhat more guarded in this respect in the first lecture, in which
he at least gave credit to the prophets and psalmists for their su
perior moral teachings, he makes his second lecture, which was to
serve also as a reply to his critics who had censured him for his in
accuracies and for his lack of reverence for the Sacred Scriptures,
the occasion of a fierce assault upon the Old Testament, its people
and its God, and in a later preface he does not even shrink from
charging the second Isaiah with tribalism and hatred of mankind.
It cannot be the object of my paper at this late time to refute the
statements of Prof. Delitzsch. This has been done by eminent As-
syriologists of Germany, France and America and leading Biblical
scholars of all lands and creeds. It would be like carrying coal to
Newcastle, should I attempt to show how far superior in their moral
tenor the Bible stories of Creation and the Flood are to those first
deciphered for us thirty years ago by the late George Smith, or how
high above the cruel and lascivious deities of Assur and Babylonia
with their wild orgies of passion and lust and their abominable
rites, so shocking to every refined sentiment, Israel's God of holiness
ranks, Whose eyes are too pure to bear the sight of evil and Whom
none may approach who is not clean of hands and pure of heart. We
willingly acknowledge our thanks to Prof. Delitzsch for having
been the first to equip the student. with the means of acquiring a sys
tematic knowledge of the Assyrian language by his Assyrian Gram
mar and Dictionary, and for having also enlarged the horizon of the
Biblical scholar by his many valuable publications and such instruc
tive works as is " Das Paradies." All the more deplorable it is
to see a scholar of his repute so carried away by his antipathy to the
theological systems, in which he was reared, if not by a morbid
craving after sensationalism, to place Babel, the "mother of har-

ASSYRIOLOGY AND THE BlBLE IO5
lots," as she is called in the Apocalypse of John, above the Bible, and
instead of treating things sacred to millions of people, whether Jews
or Christians, with befitting respect, scoff and sneer at Jehovah in
the language of the Boulevard. And our disgust at such frivolous
disregard of the religious feelings of the people is mingled with sur
prise at the fact that this harangue, worthy only of an eighteenth cen
tury rationalist, should have so impressed the German Emperor that
he felt that henceforth Israel was — so he wrote to Admiral Holl-
mann — " shorn of its prestige as the people of God."
How is it possible, we ask ourselves, that a man of the erudition
and standing of Prof. Delitzsch should be so unjust, so unfair, nay,
so perverse in his judgment as to render every anthropomorphic ex
pression concerning God in the Old Testament a proof of the low
sensual character of the Hebrew faith, as if there were not a hundred
times as many passages indicative of the sublimity and spirituality
of Jehovah, and to assign to Him whom the heavens and the
Heaven's heavens do not contain, " horns," because the Hebrew
word used for rays in Habbakuk iii, 4, is "horns" (qarnayim).
Nay, more, to insinuate that the Israelitish deity was not free from
sexual dualism because it is said that " God made man in His
image ; man and wife He created them." Indeed, we scarcely trust
our eyes when we find the laws of Moses, which taught the world
righteousness and kindness, declared to be equal and in many re
spects even inferior to the laws of Hamurabi, the Babylonian King
of the time of Abraham, which sanction almost any pagan vice and
wickedness in the social and religious life of the people, simply be
cause the warfare against the idolatrous inhabitants of Canaan in
cludes or enjoins a number of inhumanities intended to eradicate the
evil. Not even the Decalogue, the foundation of our entire civilization,
is treated without aspersions. The whole animus is that of unfairness
and impiety. And here alone lies the significance of these lectures.
As to the contents, it may well be said of them what Lessing said
of a work of his antagonist, " Whatever is true in it is not new, and
whatever is new in it is not true." It is the characteristic sign of
the time, that any professor or writer in Germany who craves for
popularity needs but to blow the horn of anti-Semitism and give
vent to the furor Teutonicus of a Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Paul La-

106 Central Conference of American Rabbis
garde and Steward Chamberlain, and no matter how groundless his
theories, he may be sure of finding favor among high and low. If
only care be taken that the New Testament, with its slanderous ac
cusation against the Jews as deicides, be left intact, the Old Testa
ment, God and Judaism may be assailed with impunity. How
much of the innocent blood that ran through the streets of Kishineff
on the last Easter Days may be traced to such German professorial
sham science, God alone knows. Surely such lectures, delivered at
the Berlin Court on " Babel und Bibel," do not lead to peace among
the classes and the races. To us Jews, then, these lectures offer a
very important lesson. Here is a Semitic philologist who, in order
to condemn Judaism as a religious truth, places the Old Testament
on a level with the Babylonian civilization denounced by Israel's
seers as ungodly and inhuman, and declares the sacred writers to be
nothing but imitators and plagiarists without any originality. And
what is his starting point? Up to modern times the Old Testament
was as holy to the Christian as to the Jew, it being regarded by the
former as the divine ground-work or preparatory stage of the New.
Modern research, eager everywhere to follow up the sources of
things, has with every new discovery in the field of mental as well
as of natural science offered the undeniable proofs of the human
origin of the Bible and all Mosaic institutions. As under the magic
wand of the Assyriologist a world of undreamt of splendor rose
from the ruins of Mesopotamia before the amazed gaze of our gen
eration, and every Biblical tale and each Mosaic rite received some
new light from the hoary past, the belief in a supernatural origin or
in the plenary inspiration of the Bible became for the thinking mind
well nigh impossible. It is true, there are orthodox Jews and
Christians to whom Assyriology presents no difficult problem what
soever, because they are of that child-like faith which does not hes
itate to take such narratives of the Bible as that regarding the insti
tution of the Sabbath by God at the very creation and the worship
of JHVH by Enoch, the grandson of Adam, as indisputable ac
tual occurrences. Such perfect naivete we respect, but we cannot re
gard it as a phase of belief in harmony with our age, which is above
all an age of historical consciousness, an age which sees the vestiges
of growth and development in everything that falls within human
ken.

Assyriology and the Bible 107
Now, what is the attitude of the Christian theologian of modern
times towards the results of modern investigation, and particularly
in the field of Assyriology? When at the close of the eighteenth
century, Egypt opened up her hidden treasures of the past to the
modern world, the resemblances discovered between the Mosaic
laws and the priestly rites of the Egyptians led the first investigators
in their rapturous conceit to the assumption that Moses stole his
ideas about God and His laws concerning the sanctuary from the
priests on the Nile, and even the name Jehovah appeared to them
as the work of plagiarism. To-day when the decipherments of the
Assyrian and Babylonian monuments have by far eclipsed those
made in the Nile Delta, Moses is declared to be indebted for all he
taught and instituted to the Babylonian codifiers and priests. All the
wider, then, is the gulf made between the Old Testament and the New
Testament, between Moses and Jesus, so as to reserve the claim of
divinity for the latter, while the former is unhesitatingly sacrificed.
This is the main aspect of the situation. " The divine nimbus of
the Jewish people is gone," says his Majesty, the Christian Emperor
of Germany, without even for a moment considering whether in
speaking thus he does not cut off from beneath his feet the very
branch of the tree upon which he stands. " Sauve qui peut," is the
cry amidst the modern deluge of ideas. The up-to-date Christian
theologian cares very little whether the best and loftiest New Testa
ment utterances have been taken over from Jewish sources or not ;
he worships, says Prof. Delitzsch, the God of Christ, not the God of
Abraham. As a Semitic professor who read his Koran, he has
words of admiration for such beautiful passages as the one describ
ing how Abraham by searching found God to be the Ruler and
Maker of sun, moon and stars, but he needs not have the least notion
that these very passages are Haggadic illustrations of the rabbis
transmitted through Jewish sources to Mohammed. To him Ju
daism is nothing but a narrow, clannish particularism. Why should
a German professor heed the ancient Mosaic precept which says :
" Do no unrighteousness in judgment ; just balances and just weights
shall ye have?" (Leviticus xix, 35, 36.)
But then, how about our Judaism ? How are we Jewish theo
logians or laymen, who, following the trend of the time, have learned

108 Central Conference of American Rabbis
to see that the whole Biblical system of life and practice has been
shaped under the direct or indirect influence of Babylonian cul
ture, — how are we to deal with these great questions of faith ; Bible
and Revelation, Law and Ceremony, Sabbath and Levitical laws?
There is little doubt in my mind that the ultra-conservative training
of Friederich Delitzsch made him a despiser and mocker of the Old
Testament. It is a psychological law that naive orthodoxy, when,
on eating of the tree of knowledge, it discovers its own nakedness,
is driven far away from its former state of innocence into rebel
lious belief. I dare say that it is owing to cowardly fear of Bible
criticism, and of the modern historical methods of Bible research
that Judaism has not produced one Jewish scholar who is the equal
of any Christian Bible Exegete of note. This is a bold statement,
and I make it without reserve and without fear of contradiction.
Should then this deplorable state of things continue and historical
Judaism in its various stages of growth find no defender except in
the narrow apologetic spirit of the Breslau school or according to the
unscientific methods of Samson Raphael Hirsch and his followers?
Only that system of theology which clearly distinguishes between
the form and the spirit, between the letter of the law and the under
lying idea furnishes us the weapons necessary to defend, and finally
to render Judaism as a world-historic power victorious. And this
system gives also Assyriology its right setting, inasmuch as it fur
nishes the most valuable key to the understanding of the whole pro
cess of growth of the Jewish faith. For evolution is the master
key. It casts its light upon all the stages of Judaism, Prophetism,
Mosaism and Rabbinism, and while including also the Christian
and Mohammedan faith as offshoots of 'Judaism, it puts the divine
stamp of history upon Progressive or Reform Judaism as the one
destined to realize the aims and ideals of the future and leading:
towards a religion of humanity broad enough to comprise all sects
and races. Taking this view, the Reform theologian on opening
his Bible is not disturbed by a Biblical cosmogony which has neither
an act of creation nor a Creator for the chaos — the Tehom — or the
primeval darkness — • Hoshek — and which so operates with the num
ber " seven " while presenting the successive stages of the creative
process of the world, that neither from the point of view of natural

Assyriology and the Bible 109
science nor with our simple common sense can we accept it as an
actuality. Acquaintance with the Babylonian myth at once solves
for him the difficulty, while he cannot fail to discern the working
of the power of the prophet's spirit in the transformation of the
quaint Chaldean story of Creation void of plan and purpose and de
picting only quarreling gods and monsters into the sublime, yet sim
ple tale, so full of perennial beauty and poetic truth. The same is
the case with the story of the Flood. It is found in its original
crudeness in the Chaldean legend, and many features that remain
obscure in the two different versions combined in the Pentateuch
chapters appear much more transparent in the Babylonian original.
Yet how much grander and loftier have the scenes of the world's
devastation become under the influence of monotheistic truth which
places God as the Judge and Ruler upon the world's throne high
above the surging flood, and turns even the rainbow in the sky into a
sign of His covenant of peace with the earth beneath. We have
as yet, notwithstanding Delitzsch's assertion to the contrary, not
discovered the Chaldean original of the Biblical story of Paradise
and the expulsion of man, nor of the Tower of Babel, but we shall
presumably some day come across them and we can with certainty
tell beforehand, with reference to fragments preserved of Berosus
by Josephus and in the Sibyllines, and other similar myths, that,
instead of the lofty view of God and of man as image of God pre
sented by the Bible, a monstrous Tehom-like serpent, and giants
rising in rebellion against God will be found occupying the chief
place there. As a matter of fact, many passages in the Bible show
traces of those mythological figures of old Chaldean demons or
monsters — Rahab and Tannin — whom Jehovah has to combat in
crder to prove victorious over storm and flood. And so we discern,
everywhere, the process of evolution at work which makes the spirit
of Jewish monotheism seize upon an often incongruous mytho
logical form, to make it expressive of high and beautiful ideas.
At times we are at a loss to decide whether Chaldea or the still
older Arabia, as cradle of the Semites, is the mother of certain
views and customs, the law of development remains the same in
both cases. The name JHVH which Delitzsch rather rashly
claims to have been imported from Babylonia has been with better

no Central Conference of American Rabbis
reasons derived by other inquirers from the Sinaitic peninsula,
and there is undeniably a mythological element attached to the
original deity of the Hebrew connecting it with fire and storm,
hail, thunder and earthquake and other phenomena of the nature of
the desert which proves the Mosaic conception of the same as the
God " Who shall be," to be an abstract creation. But, whatever, and,
wheresoever, the name JHVH originated, the God of Sinai
has nothing in common with either. He is not the creation of
Moses. He is at the very start a moral power, and only as such
did He appear to Moses and make him a prophet. Each successive
generation of prophets aided in sublimating the conception of the
Jewish deity which unlike all Semitic deities, manifested itself
from the beginning without relation to sex. In other words, Juda
ism is at the outset ethical Monotheism, whatever the original
Decalogue may, according to Bible critics, have contained. The
very simplicity of the patriarchal faith lifted the deity at once above
all the impurities and abominations of the cults of Babylon, Egypt
and Canaan, and the very term for holiness which these pagan
nations lent to the lascivious priests and priestesses of Astarte —
Kadesh and Kedesha— was by the power of the lofty genius of the
Jew so transformed as to become the expression for the very highest
ideal of purity and perfection man is to strive for.
What matters it if the penitential psalms of Babylonia served, as
has been said, the psalmists of Judea as models, or if the entire
Hebrew poetry or prose literature was influenced by Babylonian
rules of rhythm and structure, there remains a gulf between the
inner life of Babel and that of the Bible as wide as between earth and
heavens. On the one side there is a dense darkness of superstition
spread over all knowledge and science to fill the heart with gloom
in spite of all the gleams ; on the other there is, notwithstanding the
lesser skill and culture, a faith, a hope and a love which brighten and
cheer the soul to make it amidst direst woe cry forth, " If I have
Thee in heaven, I need nothing on earth ! " and amidst humblest
contrition, " Create in me a clean heart, O God ; a broken and con
trite spirit Thou wilt not despise."
Convincing proof has not been brought as yet, but it may be
assumed as certain, that the Sabbath, as a day of rest, originated in

Assyriology and the Bible hi
Babylonia where the seventh, the fourteenth, the twenty-first, and
the twenty-eighth day of each month and the nineteenth day of each
second month, that is the seven times seventh day of each double
month, was a day of perfect cessation from work for the priest-king.
On the sacredness of the number seven rested the Mosaic system
which declared the seventh day of each week, the seventh month
of the year, the seventh year and the half-a-year following the forty-
ninth year and ending with the tenth day of the seventh month of
the fiftieth year, as Klosterman has shown, as a holy season of rest
and release, and it is possible that this view or custom goes back to
more remote times of Semitic shepherd life. That the Jewish Sab
bath Avas originally like the Babylonian, a rotatory lunar festival and
not the closing day of a fixed week such as it is in the Mosaic system,
that is to say, that in ancient Israel each month consisted of four
Sabbaths or lunar cycles with a New Moon festival of two days
of which the second day formed the beginning of the new month,
may be learned from the fact that the new moon was in pre-exilic
times regarded as the greater holiday than the Sabbath, and the
announcement of a second New Moon day beforehand by Jonathan
(I Sam., xx, I9ff.) can only be explained upon such an assumption.
In fact, the Sabbath is nowhere, neither in the Decalogue nor in
the Manna story, spoken of as a new institution, and if the creation
story proves anything it is the fact that the Sabbath goes back to re
mote times and is, therefore, pictured as instituted by God from the
beginning. And yet who can compare the Babylonian Sabbath, which
was a day of fear and gloom, a dies nefas, observed only as a day
on which no work should be undertaken by king or priest from
dread of the unlucky seven stars, with the Jewish Sabbath which
was rendered a day of rejoicing and uplifting for the people, for
bcth master and servant, man and beast, a real day of God ? It was,
moreover, so essentially different from the Chaldean Sabbath that
the law expressly declares it to be a sign distinguishing Israel from
the surrounding nations. Thus here again the form was Baby
lonian; the spirit, the underlying idea is altogether Jewish and far
above the Babylonian level, and if Delitzsch claims the merit of hav
ing granted the great boon of a Sabbath to toiling humanity for
Babylon, he knowingly misstates facts.

112 Central Conference of American Rabbis
But the Assyriologist claims still more. A good fortune has
brought us during the past year into the possession of the Code of
Law which the great conqueror Hamurabi, believed to be the Bib
lical Amraphel, the contemporary of Abraham, composed for his
great empire, and which is a thousand years older than any other
code within our knowledge. It affords us an insight into a social
order which fairly amazes us by its comprehensiveness. It brings
us face to face with a state of culture compared with which Hebrew
life may be termed crude and primitive. It fixes by explicit statutes
the relations of husband to wife, of parents to children, of master
to slave and of employer to employee, and secures protection to every
owner of property against any possible injury. Daughters are
accorded the right of inheritance, wives their dowry, which is not the
case in the Mosaic Code. More than this, domestic life rests on
monogamy, though there is no restriction regarding concubines.
Is here the legislation of Moses by far eclipsed by the work of the
great Napoleon of the fourth pre-Christian Millennium ? Thus argues
Delitzsch, but in the same fallacious and unfair manner as in all
other things. First of all the statement that Hamurabi received
his laws from Shamash, the sun-God and heavenly Judge exactly
as Moses did his from the God of Sinai rests on an error. Hamurabi
is portrayed as worshiping the sun-God, not as receiving the law
from him, which in fact is expressly declared by him to be of his
own making. The Babylonian law-giver demands obedience to his
will and submission to his authority; the Jewish law-giver demands
obedience and reverence for the God who speaks out of His law and
Whose humble servant he is. And what is the main idea and essen
tial character of this law of Moses? It is not like Hamurabi's, an
iron system of bondage in which the inferior is the slave of the
superior, and property regarded as of greater value than human
life, in which the most cruel punishments are meted out for the
smallest transgression and a man beheaded for stealing a piece of
property. Justice is written with letters of fire on every statute,
justice for poor and rich alike, for the lowly and the one high in
station, one law for stranger and for citizen, and every life sacred
also that of the slave, every human being to be treated with regard,
even the criminal.
There are traces of the ancient Babylonian, or what we .vould

Assyriology and the Bible 113
call common law in the Mosaic legislation. To this belonged for
instance, the ordeal of water prescribed for the woman suspected of
adultery. In Hamurabi's code it appears in the form of jumping
into the river, the one who escaped drowning being considered as
having proved herself guiltless. Such an ordeal was known and
practiced also in mediaeval or common Teutonic law. The law of
retaliation, " an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," carried out
to its most extreme and cruel consequences in the Hamurabi Code,
^yas also part of the Hebrew common law and afterwards amended
and abrogated by the rabbis. On the other hand, blood-avenging
by the kinsman based on ancient Semitic common law and con
nected with the idea of asylums or places of divine protection was
still in force in ancient Israel but no longer recognized by Hamu
rabi's legislation. The patriarchal life of the Hebrews has also been
shown to have legal practices in common with the Babylonian Code,
as for instance the place Hagar occupies in Sarah's household when
giving birth to an heir in her stead. Nevertheless there is a little
of that deeper sense of justice and righteousness in Babylonian life
which forms so prominent a feature in Hebrew law and life. In
vain we look in Hamurabi's Code for that feeling of compassionate
love for the needy and distressed, that overflowing. sympathy for the
widow, the fatherless and homeless, which rendered the law of Moses
the Code of Ethics for humanity. Nor does it appear only as the
flowering forth of prophetic teaching in Deuteronomy. It is ex
pressed with all the touching pathos of a child-like faith in a merci
ful God in the older legislation of Exodus, the so-called Book of the
Covenant. True, monogamy is not insisted on in the Mosaic Code
as in the Babylonian, yet who can read the story of Eve's creation
or the Deuteronomic legislation without feeling that in the eyes of
the Biblical narrator and law-giver, polygamy is condemned. So
does the Deuteronomic law regarding the slave and the position
accorded to him in Abraham's household or in Job's view show
how much higher the personality of the slave is rated by the Hebrew
than the Babylonian. To sum up : Babel was a world without jus
tice and without love and compassion, one void of purity and of
truth. The Bible opened for man all the deeper treasures of the
soul in giving him a God of righteousness and holiness to emulate
and follow in humility.

114 Central Conference of American Rabbis
Nor did the influence of Babylonia end with the Bible or the
Hebrew age. Babylonian ideas helped in the formation of Judaism
and Christianity to a far greater extent than is generally known.
Here Delitzsch is for once right, but he only confirms what the
rabbis themselves declare, that the whole list of angels and demons
was adopted from Babel. What Delitzsch omitted to do — and this
is characteristic enough — is to make his assertion broader and
stronger with reference to the New Testament. The driving out
of demons, which plays such a great role in the NeAV Testament,
was one of the many practices adopted by the Essene saints and
their successors, the early Christians, from the magic system of
Chaldea. It was Babylonian superstition transplanted into Judea,
and while the great masters in Israel repudiated such practices in
Talmudical and mediaeval times, the authorities of the Church with
out exception encouraged them and built their system on them.
Only in mystic lore, in the Cabbalah, Babylonian ideas continued as
powers inspiring men with fear, the Bible, wherever it was rendered
the basis of faith, cheered the heart with the Creator's words : "Let
there be light."
Yes, Babylonia still lives in every superstitious practice, in every
astrological or magic belief, in every system of faith based upon
the belief in Satanic powers of evil and of darkness ; yet over against
all such survivals of paganism, against all that which Babel stands
for, Jeremiah's words sound forth the scathing cry of condemnation :
" Learn not the way of the heathen and be not dismayed at the signs
of heaven. There is none like Thee, O Lord ; Thou art great and
Thy name is great. Thus shall ye say unto them in the language
of Babylonia, ' The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth
— these shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens.' "
This, then, is our answer to all worshipers of Babel and haters of
Israel and its Book of Books. Babel is dead and 'her gods have
fallen and all her monuments have crumbled into dust. Israel's
God lives and will outlive all His blasphemers. Only let us see to it
that we have the men of large vision and lofty spirit, broad-minded
and abreast of the age who stand forth as defendants of our heri
tage, able to answer the scoffer and the assailant of our faith, because
they are equipped Avith the weapons of knowledge.

6480

tj&rw y .

m IX

m

it '

;j _ir--t"'v*->y-%

S -'7wl

Ky j

l

S 1

f9

- ¦ 18

" fi.*-'_.

J 1 1

C93.
V.JS*""!* _ '4*.
!______« ^ ^-w- *l^*?l