Esther from the destruction which threatened them under Haman, is undoubtedly historical fact. We shall examine the attendant circumstances in the next section.

2. The theory that the book is a fiction cannot be reconciled with its reception into the Jewish canon. If the collectors of the canon selected from the old monuments of the nation those only which bore the evident marks of inspiration, and on this ground assigned them a place. among the sacred books, it is inconceivable that a late traditionary tale, in the usual Jewish taste, could have been exalted to the same rank. The event occurred at a time when the collection of the Scriptures was already begun. The book itself could not have been written long afterwards; and the means of testing both its statements and the truthfulness of the author were so near at hand, that the idea that it is a fiction cannot be entertained for a moment. Herein indeed lies the authority of the sacred canon, viz. that at the first appearance of a book it was acknowledged to contain a true history, and that the author and contents obtained the approval of collectors of so high authority; herein also a very ancient and important testimony is given in favor of the history narrated, coming from a period when the means of forming a most accurate judgment of our Scriptures were still in existence. The more the subject of the book is removed, in respect to time or place, from the other Old Testament writings, the more difficulties must there be in the way of its reception among them, and the more striking and thorough must be the evidence of the truth of the narrative, and of the credibility of the writer. This test, in the present case is capable of being very fully applied.

4. THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER. De Wette remarks, in respect to the historical character of the book of Esther, that one can solve almost all the individual difficulties, by the aid of an ingenious mind and a knowledge of history; but the whole can no more be regarded as genuine history than the very similar third book of the Maccabees. We cannot see how this agrees with the observation of the same learned man just before, that the book mocks all historical probability, containing the greatest difficulties, and many errors in respect to Persian customs. These charges of De Wette are, however, without proof. He has not substantiated them

by a single example. How can the whole be extremely improbable, while, notwithstanding, all the historical difficulties admit of an easy solution? Would De Wette grant this in respect to a book like Tobit or Judith? If on the ground of such impossibility we ought to reject these writings, on account of the opposite the book of Esther must be received.

Let us now hear the opinion of Von Fach, the historian, on the historical contents of the book. He says, "Even though it were a fiction, still it is a true picture of court-manners in Persia." (Heeren, Ideen, I, 1. s. 132. Comp. s. 466.) He who considers how difficult it must be for a modern Jewish historian to transport himself into the manners of a strange nation and a foreign court, (and it is herein that the principal errors are alleged to exist,) must be astonished at such an acknowledgment as this. Would a mere fiction have fallen into so accurate a delineation of the manners of the Persian court? The author who could achieve such a work must have written with the most unlimited freedom, or under the most abject dependence; and neither of these, in the present case, can be conceived possible.

It is only an examination of the details of the book, that can show what is improbable in the narrative. If now the various items form together one harmonious and perfect picture, there is no reason to doubt the historical probability and truth of the narration.

5. CREDIBILITY OF THE BOOK.

[This section and the following are translated from the Introduction of the late Prof. Herbst, of Tübingen. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die heiligen Schriften des alten Testaments von Dr. J. G. Herbst, ordentlichem öffentlichem Professor an der katholisch-theologischen Facultät zu Tübingen. Nach des Verfassers Tode vervollständiget und herausgegeben von B. Welte, ausserord. Prof. zu. Tübingen. Karlsruhe und Freiberg. (1840 P. II, s. 251-258.) They repeat, in some instances, the views of Hävernick, but contain so much that is valuable, and so clearly expressed, that we give them without abridgment.-ED.]

The contents of the book of Esther were long held to be credible, because there was nothing in it to excite suspicion of the truthfulness of the narrator. The only strik

VOL. XIII.NO. LI.

32*

ing objection to it was the shades in the character of the two principal personages, Mordecai and his foster-daughter, especially the revengeful spirit of the latter; it was, however, an alleviation of this difficulty that the Bible barely relates events, without defending the actors in them. But in modern times, various doubts have been suggested as to the historical value of the book; difficulties have been sought in the narrative, and objections urged against the truth of several of its statements. Oeder first took the trouble to exhibit these doubts in a connected manner, in his Investigation of the Canon of the Old Testament (Untersuch. über d. Kanon des A. T. s. 12 seq.). Michaelis did the same, first in the Orient. Bibliothek, II, s. 35 seq., and afterwards in his Remarks on the German translation of the book of Esther (Anmerk. zur deutsch. Uebersetz. d. B. Esther). Corrodi followed their example in his Illustration of the History of the Jewish Canon (Beleuchtung d. Gesch des Jüd. Kanons, s. 66 seq.). The objections of these writers have no weight. They arise chiefly from ignorance not of Persian manners only, but of Eastern manners generally. Hence the defenders of the book, Eichhorn, Jahn, Dereser, etc., have found no difficulty in cutting them up by the roots.

In the latest times, the opponents of the book, convinced of the untenableness of those objections, have taken a more comprehensive method. They assail the history at large, without giving any reasons for their condemnation of it. "The book of Esther," says one, is a historical romance." "The book of Esther," says another.t "is a fragmentary work, not worthy of the name of history. The story how Esther, the Jewess, concealing her origin from the Persian king, was raised to the dignity of queen, how the destruction of the Jews in Persia, planned by Haman, was averted by her and Mordecai, Haman overthrown, Mordecai elevated to his place and permission given to the Jews to avenge themselves by the blood of their enemies-in commemoration of which the feast of Purim was instituted, is wholly improbable; it involves the most marked difficulties, and in many cases is at war

* Augusti, Einleit. s. 274.

De Wette, s. 289.

with Persian manners.”* He adds, "almost all the difficulties, taken singly can be solved by a knowledge of history, and common sense; but, taken as a whole, it has no more the stamp of genuine history than the very similar composition called the third book of Maccabees." He makes no attempt to assign a reason for this judgment.

Let us now carefully examine this subject. What then is so improbable in this narrative? That a beautiful Jewish maiden should become a Persian queen? This is no more improbable than that the Jews were once kings in Arabia, or that the maiden of Marienburg shared the throne of the czars with Peter the Great, or that the beautiful Esther of Casimir, king of Poland, wore the dignity of queen. What were, indeed, the queens of the East, where polygamy universally prevailed? Nothing more than the chief favorites of the sovereign; slaves, bought at the slave-markets or stolen from their friends, and who shared the honor and power of their lords, as long as they administered to their passions. That which the Bible relates of Esther occurs every day where the rights of princes are not acknowledged, and where equality of birth is a thing unknown. Indeed among the Persians there was a distinction between concubines and wives; and the kings were bound to take the latter only from the stock of Achæmenes. May it not be supposed that Ahasuerus having divorced his wife because she refused to yield to his request, scorned to take another from that proud race, and having once submitted to the prevailing custom, afterwards sought one who pleased him?

It is suggested that the concealment of Esther's Jewish origin is improbable. But her origin was not written upon her brow, and hence she had nothing to do to conceal it but to keep silence. The officers who were commanded to seek for the king a maiden of rare beauty, inquired as little for the origin of Esther, after they found that she corresponded to their wishes, as the overseers of the harem to whose charge she was committed. When the time came for Esther's origin to be made known, she revealed it to the king herself.

Neither is it improbable that the destruction of the Jews. in Persia, planned by Haman, was averted by Mordecai

In the fifth edition of his work De Wette softens the form of expression, by saying "it consists of a series of historical difficulties and improbabilities." s. 273.

and Esther, Haman overthrown, and Mordecai elevated. to his place. As to the ground of Haman's malice towards Mordecai, experience teaches that persons raised from obscurity cannot be more deeply mortified than when they feel that the honors belonging to their station are not accorded to them; their hatred towards those by whom they think themselves despised is mortal and inextinguishable. Too often such men seek to vent their rage not only upon the offender himself, but also upon his whole family or race, or even upon his whole nation, if they can get the power to do so into their hands. Haman coveted this power and resolved to use it to satisfy his revenge. How his plan was frustrated by Esther, and his power prostrated, can be explained by a reference to the principles on which the government of the harem was regulated. Christian courts even afford a parallel to the Persian. A worse management than that of the court of Ahasuerus is not a thing unheard of, even in the recent history of Europe. Better and more powerful men than Haman have been overthrown by the favorite women of the sovereign, and worse men than Mordecai have been put in their places. If such a thing could take place in a European court, how much more might it occur in Asia, where he who holds at his nod the life of millions is too often the slave of his wives and their keepers!

The only thing which seems strange and improbable is that the few timid exiles in a foreign state, should have laid hands upon the natural born citizens, and slaughtered them by hundreds and thousands with impunity. But if we view the occurrence only in its proper relations and apart from the rhetorical embellishment in which it appears, it seems no longer strange, but a necessary cousequence of the events going before, and an inevitable result of the overthrow of one favorite and the elevation of another to his place. Both in the capital and in the distant, provinces, Haman, like every vizier, had his body of adherents, the tools of his kindness and of his revenge. If he was sacrificed to the malice of his successor, his adherents were sacrificed with him, losing property and life also, if the new officer so pleased, just as now in some civilized countries, when the minister is displaced, his partisans lose their income also. Mordecai had his adherents far and near, ready instruments of his will. Hence