at his nod, the governors, the princes and the deputies of the king were ready to destroy those whom he pointed out for destruction (Est. 9: 3). Mordecai and Esther had resolved to slaughter those who had shown themselves the most ready to execute the bloody decree of Haman; and the cowering timidity of the legitimate officers in the presence of the powerful favorite made them an easy prey to the Jews, who, under the protection and with the aid of the royal governors, put them to death.

Thus there is nothing improbable in the history. All the events related in the book are such as have often occurred, and do now occur in the courts of the East. Their combination for the benefit of the Jews is the only thing which is not of daily occurrence; but if this had been a common thing, it would scarcely have been made a matter of historical record.

If these views have shown that the history of Esther is not improbable, the fact of the institution of the feast of Purim shows on the other hand that it is true. This feast has been celebrated among the Jews from a very remote period, in commemoration of the deliverance of their nation from the designs of Haman. There is, therefore, no doubt that such a deliverance took place; and the institution of a special feast in commemoration of it, shows that the danger was imminent, and the means by which it was averted, extraordinary. Seeing therefore we have an ancient work, describing this danger and the circumstances by which the Jews were rescued from it, I know not what other marks of the credibility of the book the most severe skepticism could require.

§ 6. TIME OF THE EVENTS DESCRIBED IN THE BOOK.

The first question that suggests itself to us is, Who was Ahasuerus? Ahasuerus is the name of several kings mentioned in the Scriptures; of Astyages, Dan. 9: 1, of Cambyses, Ezra 4: 6, and of the king spoken of in the book of Esther. The name signifies noble, excellent, distinguished. Its root is the Persian word signifying excellence (Comp. Bohlen, Symbolik, s. 19). Thus the name. affords no assistance in solving the question. As little aid is to be obtained from profane writers, who give the his tory of Western Asia, and of the sovereigns who lived after the destruction of Jerusalem. They speak of no

king whose name bore any resemblance to Ahasuerus, nor do they relate any events similar to those recorded in the book of Esther. Hence we are thrown upon the book itself to make out the person designed by Ahasuerus, and the kingdom over which he reigned.

Most learned men, ancient and modern, have agreed that it was the kingdom of Persia, in which the events narrated took place. It is true, Ahasuerus is nowhere called the king of Persia, not even where the author describes the extent of his dominions (1: 1). But this king held his court in Shushan (1: 2, 5,) well known as the winter residence of the Persian monarchs. His cabinet was formed of seven princes of the Persians and Medes (1: 14), a custom which, from other sources, is known to have prevailed in the court of Persia. The ladies, who, it was feared, would imitate the example of their queen, are the princesses of the Medes and Persians (1: 18.) The decree, repudiating Vashti, is an irrevocable law of the Medes and Persians (1: 19).

Having thus identified the kingdom of Ahasuerus, if we attend to the character of the prince and to the time during which he had reigned (3: 7,) it is not difficult to fix with probability upon the king of Persia. It is only by inattention to these things, that authors could have found in Ahasuerus, Cambyses (Kohlreif, Chronol. sacra, p. 2. cap. 15,) or Darius Hystaspes (Usher, Annal. ad a. 4193,) or Artaxerxes Longimanus (Josephus Flav., Archaeol. 11, 6). Justi, following out a hint of Scaliger (de emendat. temp. L. 6,) first made a thorough investigation, and decided in favor of Xerxes. He set out with the datum that the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther must necessarily be a luxurious, weak and cruel Persian king, a bitter enemy of the Jews, and who had reigned at least twelve years. Hence the earlier Persian monarchs, Cambyses and Smerdis, are out of the question, because their reigns were too short. The same must be said of Darius and of Artaxerxes Longimanus, whose prudence of character and friendly feeling towards the Jews is well known from other sources. Xerxes alone remains, whose habits of thought and action correspond with those of Ahasterus, and whose reign extended to double the number of years mentioned in the book of Esther. The treatise of Justi is not free from exaggerated statements, particularly

in the description of the character of Ahasuerus; he pays too little regard to the liberties which were taken even by the best of the Eastern monarchs. Still his work is, on the whole, so excellent that it has received the approval of the best critics, and its view of Ahasuerus has been generally adopted.

Des Vignoles, Jackson, Prideaux, Marsham and others,* who understand by Ahasuerus one of the kings of Media, have been obliged to reason differently. For if we refer the words (26) "who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captivity which had been carried away with Jeconiah, king of Judah," etc., to Mordecai (v. 5), which the mode of speech in constructing genealogies would fully warrant (Jahn's Archæology, II,) and as it is understood in the additions in the Apocrypha to the book of Esther (11: 4), then neither can Xerxes be meant, nor, for reasons before mentioned, any one of his predecessors on the throne of Persia. In the Median period, the Persians had no political importance. They first came to an equality with the Medes after Cyrus. But in the book of Esther no less importance or rank is assigned to the Persians than to the Medes. Hence either the words in 2: 6 must relate to Kish in v. 5, or it must be supposed that the writer confounded the Mordecai under Xerxes with the one mentioned in Esdr. 2: 2.

7. CONTENTS OF THE BOOK.

In this examination, we suppose, in the outset, that

* Des Vignoles (Chronologie de l'histoire sainte) and Jackson (Chronology and Antiquities, II.) understand by Ahasuerus, Cyaxares I; Prideaux (Connexions, I,) decides for Astyages; and Marsham (Can. Chron., P. II, cap. 15,) for Cyaxares II.

If the principal difficulty in supposing that Ahasuerus was a Median king be that the Persians, who, in the time of the Medes, had no political importance, stand on an equality with the Medes in the book of Esther, the difficulty is a very small one: for the relation of the two nations spoken of has reference to the time of the writer, not to the time of the event. When the book of Esther

was written, the Persians stood on the same level with the Medes, or perhaps even above them; for when they are both mentioned together (1: 3, 18, 19,) the Persians are put before the Medes. But at the time of the event narrated, their relations were reversed. The chronicles in which the history of Esther and Mordecai is recorded, are called not the chronicles of the kings of Persia and Media, but of Media and Persia (10: 2). It is the more likely that the author here gives the title of the records with exactness, because, as things were in his time, the opposite order was the more familiar to him. If this be so, then the chroni cles were Medio-Persian, and accordingly Ahasuerus was a Medio-Persian king before Cyrus. This view is not without objections; but the other that Ahasuerus is Xerxes, has incontestibly far greater.

Ahasuerus is no other than Xerxes.* The time is past in which this could be questioned; recent inquiries in respect to the name itself have decided this point beyond a doubt. Under any other supposition, the history of the book is unintelligible; if we admit it, numerous circumstances and references find a clear and adequate illustration. Let us now examine in succession the series of events. In chap. 1: 1-4, we learn that a great feast took place in the third year of this king. This description agrees exactly with the history. After his campaign in Egypt, Xerxes assembled his nobles in reference to an attack upon Greece (Herod. vii. 8). The expedition to Egypt occurred in the second year of his reign (vii. 7); hence the narrative of the convocation of the nobles, which is intimately connected with it, is perhaps justly put a year later; for the expedition itself occurred in the beginning of the fifth year (vii. 20). Herodotus describes this convocation as extraordinary and imposing. So, according to the sacred book (Est. 1: 3,) all the distinguished men, the nobles and the princes of the provinces were invited.† Herodotus, indeed, does not mention the banquet on this occasion. It was as little suited to his object, as to that of the book of Esther to relate the plans discussed there, which Herodotus details so fully. But they show alike the Persian custom of joining with feasting and luxury the most solemn deliberations. When this is considered, the duration of the feast for 180 days no longer strikes us as wonderful. The extensive preparations for the expedition against the Greeks are well known. The carrying out of the plans proposed required protracted deliberations; and this fact illustrates the whole narrative of the historian, in which the influence of Greek taste is every where discernible. At the splendor of the banquet no one can be astonished, but he whose idea of the magnificence aud luxury of the Persian court is formed on modern and partial views. Xerxes is represented here as *Gesenius says, "That Xerxes is meant by Ahasuerus, is the most probable opinion, and the idea is confirmed by a comparison of the old Persian form." Heeren says, "Great projects were discussed and determined on, only on extraordinary occasions. At such times, the satraps, princes of the provinces and governors were invited to the deliberations, Her. vii. 8. viii, 67, etc." Bertholdt's cavil,-"How could the provinces have been administered in the absence of the governors ?-were only the military chieftains invited to those assemblies?"-lies not only against the book of Esther, but also against Herodotus, and merits no regard. Winer, Rellex. II. s. 270.

Comp. Brissonius, I. c. p. 468 seq.

the sovereign of 127 provinces, from India to Ethiopia. The latter is exactly conformed to historical data. The Ethiopians, having been vanquished by Cambyses (Her. 3, 16, 97), served in the army of Xerxes (Her. 7, 69, 70), and a part of India was governed by a Persian satrap (Heeren s. 337 seq.) In a similar manner the Persian Mardonius celebrates the greatness of the empire (Her. vii. 9). History guides us also to the 127 provinces, which are here not so much districts under the dominion of a satrap, as territories or governments, several of which were included in each satrapy. The twenty satrapies of Darius mentioned by Herodotus (3, 89 seq.) embrace from sixty to seventy governments. That there were more than this is evident from Daniel's 120 provinces (Dan. 6: 1). We find a similar testimony in the cuneiform inscription in the Persian character recently deciphered on a monument with great skill, in which there is a statistical view of the governments included in the dominion of Xerxes,-compiled, however, for another purpose than the index of Herodotus. Of the names on this monument discovered by Herodotus, Lassen says, "There are 27 or perhaps 28 names out of the 120, which Daniel gives to the princes of Darius. Other inscriptions must have contained the remainder." This must apply also to the 127 provinces of Est. 1: 1. It is natural to expect more in the time of Xerxes, than in that of Darius the Mede.

The description of the banquet in chap. 1: 5-8 agrees, in the minutest details, with Persian custom. Mention is inade in verse 5, of the park or garden near the king's palace (Brissonius, p. 107 seq.) The magnificence described in verse 6, agrees precisely with the gorgeous description of Shushan [Susa] given by the old writers. Of the number and splendor of the drinking vessels (verse 7) the ancients can never speak with enough enthusiasm (Brissonius, p. 475 seq.) They drank according to the custom of the Persians, i. e. for a wager; but "none did compel" (1: 8). Even the royal wine is mentioned (verse 7,) which, the classics inform us, was brought as a tribute to the monarch by the province of Syria (Athenaeus I, p. 28. Casaub. Brisson, 1. c. p. 129 seq.)

Chap. 1: 9-22. The demand of the king that Vashti should appear at the banquet, her refusal to do so, and the decree of Xerxes on that account, are fully explained

VOL. XIII.NO. LI.

33