gate his plans with the utmost security, relying on the irrevocableness of the Persian laws.

In chapters 4-7, there are no grounds for doubt; on the contrary, there are marks of precision and truthfulness. According to 4: 2, persons clothed in sackcloth were forbidden to enter the king's palace. This is in keeping with the Persian ideas of the divine dignity of the king, and the laws of the Zend system touching purification. A person clothed in mourning was, in the view of this system, impure (Creuzer, Symbolik, I, s. 712), and therefore could not come near the king's person. In 4: 11, 5: 2, we have an intimation of the king's custom sometimes to show favor to a person not previously announced, of which elsewhere nothing is known. In 5: 6, Xerxes promised Esther to grant her request, "even to the half of the kingdom." Nothing is more in harmony with his character than such a promise. His liberality to his wives often led him to similar acts (Her. ix, 109). Haman deemed it the highest honor to be invited to the king's table (5: 12). The king commonly ate alone; but sometimes in company with the queen-mother, or with one of his wives or children (Brisson. p. 149). Besides, to be invited to the table was a peculiar mark of favor.* Accordingly here Persian, etiquette is very strictly observed. It was not without reason that Esther chose such a banquet to present her request to the king. Amestris did the like, when she prayed Xerxes for the deliverance of a rival; in such a place she was most secure against denial (Herod. ix, 110). Hanging on a tree is spoken of as the punishment which Haman designed for Mordecai, and which he himself afterwards suffered (2: 23, 7:10). Crucifixion is intended, which the Greeks also called avaoxohoníÇev. According to the classics, it was at that time a common method of death-punishment among the Persians (comp. Est. 6: 1, Her. 3, 125, 4, 437, 194, Ctes. Pers. $5, etc.) In chap. 6: 1, the king hears from the chronicles of the kingdom, how his life had been rescued by the influence of Mordecai. By the Persian law, no crime was branded as more unworthy than ingratitude (Xenoph. Cyropæd. I, 2. 7); hence it was above all most becoming to

*The Greek expression for one who enjoyed this honor was quotquлntos. See Bähr ad Herod. 3, 122. That the queens might also give such invitations (5: 4,8) is shown by an example from Heliodorus in Brisson., p. 194 seq.

the monarch to show himself grateful. History is rich in examples of the rewards given by kings for services done them. Those who were denominated gooáyjai, or benefactors of the king (evegyeri Buviles), and particularly those who had saved the life of their sovereign (Brisson., p. 194 seq.), were loaded with honors. Herodotus says expressly that their names and deeds were recorded in the public annals and the domestic journal of the king.* In 6: 8, Haman designates, as the highest mark of distinction which the king could confer, first the royal apparel, the gorgeous Median robe, which none but the king might wear, then the king's horse, and the royal diadem (Hoeck. 1. c. p. 43 seq.) spendid insignia, which the kings bestowed only on the rarest occasions; e. g. Antalcidas, the Spartan, was honored by Artaxerxes with the royal diadem (Brisson. p. 217 seq.) Chap. 8: 15 demonstrates the author's perfect familiarity with this ornament: the royal apparel is purple and white; the diadem, of linen and purple. Of the latter, Curtius, e. g., says (vi, 6) Alexander placed upon his head a diadem of purple mixed with white, like that of Darius. After Haman was condemned by the king, his face was covered (7: 8). The criminal, as he was unclean, was not permitted to look upon the face of the monarch. This, Clericus justly remarks, was the beginning of his punishment. The description exactly corresponds with the usage of the Per

sian court.

Chap. viii-x. The principal objection urged against the narrative of the bloody slaughter of the Persians (9: 2-16) is, that it is not conceivable that so great a number of men would have patiently submitted to be put to death by the Jews; the enemies of the Jews were not prohibited from defending themselves; how then should their fear of them have been so great? The assaults made by the Jews were unlawful, as they had only been directed to act in self-defence (8: 11). Such objections rest only on a gross misunderstanding; but they afford us occasion for a more precise illustration of the subject.

*Her. viii, 85. "The name of Phylacus, the benefactor of the king, was recorded, and land was given to him liberally" (see Bähr, p. 117). This case is the more interesting, because it is taken from the history of Xerxes.

Plutarch in Artax. On the robe, see Hoeck, Monum. Vet. Medicæ et Pers. p. 44 seq.

The book of Esther regards the event which sprung out of the two decrees of the king, as a formal hand-to-hand encounter between Jews and heathen. The first decree being, by the law of the Medes and Persians, irrevocable, this was the only possible way for the Jews to save themselves. In a kingdom where subject provinces could waste one another by mutual wars and the government look on unmoved, if it only brought advantage to the state, license for such slaughter cannot be deemed strange (Xenoph. Anab. I, 1, Clericus 9, 6). We should remember too what an immense influence was exerted by the wives in the affairs of government, in the time of Xerxes and afterwards. Artaynta enjoyed, as a present from Xerxes, vast treasures, cities, and a standing army for her own defence (Her. ix, 109). If now a command was issued, not merely permitting the Jews to defend themselves, but even authorizing them to put to death their enemies, with their wives and children, the first command. was made void. For the elevation of Mordecai brought over all the dignitaries of the kingdom to the interest of the Jews (9: 3). In this way the Jews, for those days, were raised in fact to be the ruling people. And why should it be deemed strange if a great number fell victims to the revenge of the Jews, enjoying such protection, and having the national feeling roused against them? It is nowhere said in the book that they did not defend themselves; indeed, such a thing could not be conceived. The narrative affirms only that the Jews enjoyed entire supremacy; "no one," it is said, "could stand before them" (9: 2); i. e. no one could equal them in power (Eichhorn, s. 665 seq.) The number slaughtered by them was not excessive. That 300 men in Shushan, and 75,000 in the whole kingdom lost their lives, we have no reason to doubt; for nothing that we know of the population of the Jews in Persia at that time renders it impossible. Even the opponents of the book would scarcely be willing to borrow any argument from this statement, since they presume to doubt the first decree, for the destruction of the Jews, for this very reason, that they were so numerous. The later history of the Jews, under the Roman empire, presents similar conflicts; revenge seems to belong to their national character; and often they inflicted the most horrible cruelties, for the sake of gratifying this passion.

On the other hand, the book contains other historical statements presented with the utmost precision, and whose truth cannot be doubted; especially the raising of the tribute under Xerxes (10: 1). This is an isolated fact, not adding anything to the specific history of the book, and placed by the author at the end, perhaps for the purpose of recording a memorable event which took place during the power of Mordecai. The date of this taxation sufficiently explains the reason of it. It is well known that Darius had secured the more strict and regular payment of the tribute (Herod. 3, 89 seq.); and Xerxes must have been inclined to raise a tax the sooner, inasmuch as after the expedition into Greece he eagerly seized every occasion to enrich himself (Her. I, 183). Artaxerxes, his successor, also raised a similar tax.* Moreover the author is so exactly informed of the details of the business, that he even mentions by name the sons of Haman (10: 7 seq.). This can hardly be fiction. The writer exhibited those names in connection with an event, that he might give greater distinctiveness to the family of Haman, at a period when they were still known, and their names had a peculiar interest. He also wisely referred to the chronicles of Persia, to authenticate his history of Mordecai, and the distinction to which he was elevated (10: 2). Consequently we cannot suspect him of falsehood without the most stringent reasons.

An essential part of this narrative relates to the institution of the feast of Purim. The author endeavors to give special prominence to it; he does not forget to mention the care taken by Mordecai and Esther to ensure the commemoration of the event (9: 20, 21). Still he nowhere exaggerates the character of the festival. He makes it a simple feast of joy (9: 22), wholly devoid of that sacredness, that divine consideration which a later Jew, drawing on his imagination, would not fail to give it. The author of the apocryphal additions, after 10: 3, undertakes, in the best way in his power, to make up for this

*The passage of Strabo (xv. p. 735) τὸν διατάξαντα τοὺς φόρους Δαρείον εἶναι τὸν μακρού χειρα καὶ κάλλιστον ἀνθρώπων, I understand to imply that Stra bo contemplated not, as is generally stated. Darius Hystaspes alone, who levied a tribute on the Persians, but three kings, Darius Hystaspes, Artaxerxes Longimanus, and Xerxes, who is here, according to Herod., vii, 187, called zúros áróлш. Thus our narrative is strongly confirmed by that author.

supposed defect, giving to the feast a sacred character, which, in the book of Esther, it evidently does not claim to possess. By the addition of certain rites, particularly the reading of the book of Esther, the Jewish synagogue has endeavored to sanctify it still further.

One other circumstance is to be considered, which has often been presented as an objection to the historical character of the book-a circumstance often remarked, but seldom perfectly understood. The thirteenth day of the twelfth month was the day appointed for the execution of Haman's order for the destruction of the Jews (9: 1). It is remarkable that the issuing of Haman's order occurred on the same day of the month (3: 12).* But this too can be satisfactorily explained from the customs of the time. The habit of casting the lot in respect to the month and day for the execution of any project is an intimation that the Persians had their lucky and unlucky days (dies fasti et nefasti). This is confirmed by express testimony. Ideler on the old solar year of the Persians (Handb. d. Chronol. II, s. 540), remarks, "For various reasons they avoid intercalating a single day. Mesudi gives as the reason, that they distinguish the days into lucky and unlucky. Moreover, according to Kotbeddin, every day was consecrated to a particular genius and was under his protection." With this corresponds the fact that all the names of the months and of the days of the month are borrowed from the Izeds or genii, who, according to the Zendavesta, are the subjects of Ormuzd, and preside over the several months (Zendavesta v. Kleuker, 1, s. 15 seq. II, s. 386 seq. Ideler, s. 517). If now the same day was under the patronage of the same genius, and hence, in consequence of the lot, seemed to Haman a favorable one,† it is perfectly plain why he fixed the same day in two different months, the one for the promulgation of his decree, and the other for the execution of it.

Thus in numerous details the book perfectly harmonizes with the circumstances of the times when the events narrated in it occurred, and with the customs which then

* Some, without grounds,—as Eichhorn, p. 664,-have said that all decrees were issued on the thirteenth day. The decree of Mordecai was issued not on the thirteenth, but the twenty-third day of the month (8: 9).

In reference to this Rhode remarks, "as every day has its governor and patron, prayers were addressed to the patrons, but not to the days." Die heil. Sage des Zendvolkes, s. 354.