Esther 1 commentary

The pride of Ahasuerus's heart rising with the grandeur of his kingdom, he made an extravagant feast. This was vain glory. Better is a dinner of herbs with quietness, than this banquet of wine, with all the noise and tumult that must have attended it. But except grace prevails in the heart, self-exaltation and self-indulgence, in one form or another, will be the ruling principle. Yet none did compel; so that if any drank to excess, it was their own fault. This caution of a heathen prince, even when he would show his generosity, may shame many called Christians, who, under pretence of sending the health round, send sin round, and death with it. There is a woe to them that do so; let them read it, and tremble, Hab 2:15, 16.

Ahasuerus's feast ended in heaviness, by his own folly. Seasons of peculiar festivity often end in vexation. Superiors should be careful not to command what may reasonably be disobeyed. But when wine is in, men's reason departs from them. He that had rule over 127 provinces, had no rule over his own spirit. But whether the passion or the policy of the king was served by this decree, God's providence made way for Esther to the crown, and defeated Haman's wicked project, even before it had entered into his heart, and he arrived at his power. Let us rejoice that the Lord reigns, and will overrule the madness or folly of mankind to promote his own glory, and the safety and happiness of his people.

THE BOOK OF ESTHER

Commentary by Robert Jamieson

CHAPTER 1

Es 1:1-22. Ahasuerus Makes Royal Feasts.

1. Ahasuerus--It is now generally agreed among learned men that the Ahasuerus mentioned in this episode is the Xerxes who figures in Grecian history.

3. made a feast unto all his princes and his servants--Banquets on so grand a scale, and extending over so great a period, have been frequently provided by the luxurious monarchs of Eastern countries, both in ancient and modern times. The early portion of this festive season, however, seems to have been dedicated to amusement, particularly an exhibition of the magnificence and treasures of the court, and it was closed by a special feast of seven days' continuance, given within the gardens of the royal palace. The ancient palace of Susa has been recently disinterred from an incumbent mass of earth and ruins; and in that palace, which is, beyond all doubt, the actual edifice referred to in this passage, there is a great hall of marble pillars. "The position of the great colonnade corresponds with the account here given. It stands on an elevation in the center of the mound, the remainder of which we may well imagine to have been occupied, after the Persian fashion, with a garden and fountains. Thus the colonnade would represent the 'court of the garden of the king's palace' with its 'pillars of marble.' I am even inclined to believe the expression, 'Shushan the palace,' applies especially to this portion of the existing ruins, in contradistinction to the citadel and the city of Shushan" [Loftus, Chaldaea and Susiana].

6. Where were white, green, and blue hangings, &c.--The fashion, in the houses of the great, on festive occasions, was to decorate the chambers from the middle of the wall downward with damask or velvet hangings of variegated colors suspended on hooks, or taken down at pleasure.

the beds were of gold and silver--that is, the couches on which, according to Oriental fashion, the guests reclined, and which were either formed entirely of gold and silver or inlaid with ornaments of those costly metals, stood on an elevated floor of parti-colored marble.

7. they gave them drink in vessels of gold--There is reason to believe from this account, as well as from Es 5:6; 7:2, 7, 8, where the drinking of wine occupies by far the most prominent place in the description, that this was a banquet rather than a feast.

9. Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women--The celebration was double; for, as according to the Oriental fashion, the sexes do not intermingle in society, the court ladies were entertained in a separate apartment by the queen.

10-12. On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine--As the feast days advanced, the drinking was more freely indulged in, so that the close was usually marked by great excesses of revelry.

he commanded ... the seven chamberlains--These were the eunuchs who had charge of the royal harem. The refusal of Vashti to obey an order which required her to make an indecent exposure of herself before a company of drunken revellers, was becoming both the modesty of her sex and her rank as queen; for, according to Persian customs, the queen, even more than the wives of other men, was secluded from the public gaze. Had not the king's blood been heated with wine, or his reason overpowered by force of offended pride, he would have perceived that his own honor, as well as hers, was consulted by her dignified conduct.

13-19. Then the king said to the wise men--These were probably the magi, without whose advice as to the proper time of doing a thing the Persian kings never did take any step whatever; and the persons named in Es 1:14 were the "seven counsellors" (compare Ezr 7:14) who formed the state ministry. The combined wisdom of all, it seems, was enlisted to consult with the king what course should be taken after so unprecedented an occurrence as Vashti's disobedience of the royal summons. It is scarcely possible for us to imagine the astonishment produced by such a refusal in a country and a court where the will of the sovereign was absolute. The assembled grandees were petrified with horror at the daring affront. Alarm for the consequences that might ensue to each of them in his own household next seized on their minds; and the sounds of bacchanalian revelry were hushed into deep and anxious consultation what punishment to inflict on the refractory queen. But a purpose was to be served by the flattery of the king and the enslavement of all women. The counsellors were too intoxicated or obsequious to oppose the courtly advice of Memucan was unanimously resolved, with a wise regard to the public interests of the nation, that the punishment of Vashti could be nothing short of degradation from her royal dignity. The doom was accordingly pronounced and made known in all parts of the empire.

Now it came to pass - The Ahasuerus of the Romans, the Artaxerxes of the Greeks and Ardsheer of the Persians, are the same. Some think that this Ahasuerus was Darius, the son of Hystaspes; but Prideaux and others maintain that he was Artaxerxes Longimanus.

Reigned from India even unto Ethiopia - This is nearly the same account that is given by Xenophon. How great and glorious the kingdom of Cyrus was beyond all the kingdoms of Asia, was evident from this: Ὡρισθῃ μεν πρως ἑῳ τῃ Ερυθρᾳ θαλαττῃ· προς αρκτον δε τῳ Ευξεινῳ ποντῳ· προς ἑσπεραν δε Κυπρῳ και Αιγυπτῳ· προς μεσημβριαν δε Αιθιοπιᾳ. "It was bounded on the east by the Red Sea; on the north by the Euxine Sea; on the west by Cyprus and Egypt; and on the south by Ethiopia." - Cyrop. lib. viii., p. 241, edit. Steph. 1581.

Sat on the throne of his kingdom - Having subdued all his enemies, and brought universal peace to his empire. See the commencement of the introduction.

Shushan the palace - The ancient city of Susa, now called Shuster by the Persians. This, with Ecbatana and Babylon, was a residence of the Persian kings. The word הבירה habbirah, which we render the palace, should be rendered the city, εν Σουσοις τῃ πολει, as in the Septuagint.

The riches of his glorious kingdom - Luxury was the characteristic of the Eastern monarchs, and particularly of the Persians. In their feasts, which were superb and of long continuance, they made a general exhibition of their wealth, grandeur, etc., and received the highest encomiums from their poets and flatterers. Their ostentation on such occasions passed into a proverb: hence Horace: -

Persicos odi, puer, apparatus:

Displicent nexae philyra coronae;

Mitte sectari, rosa quo locorum

Sera moretur.

I tell thee, boy, that I detest

The grandeur of a Persian feast;

Nor for me the linden's rind

Shall the flowery chaplet bind.

Then search not where the curious rose

Beyond his season loitering grows.

Francis.

A feast unto all the people - The first was a feast for the nobles in general; this, for the people of the city at large.

In the court of the garden - As the company was very numerous that was to be received, no apartments in the palace could be capable of containing them; therefore the court of the garden was chosen.

White, green, and blue hangings - It was customary, on such occasions, not only to hang the place about with elegant curtains of the above colors, as Dr. Shaw and others have remarked, but also to have a canopy of rich stuffs suspended on cords from side to side of the place in which they feasted. And such courts were ordinarily paved with different coloured marbles, or with tiles painted, as above specified. And this was the origin of the Musive or Mosaic work, well known among the Asiatics, and borrowed from them by the Greeks and the Romans.

The beds of gold and silver mentioned here were the couches covered with gold and silver cloth, on which the guests reclined.

Vessels being diverse - They had different services of plate.

None did compel: for so the king had appointed - Every person drank what he pleased; he was not obliged to take more than he had reason to think would do him good.

Among the Greeks, each guest was obliged to keep the round, or leave the company: hence the proverb Η πιθι, η απιθι; Drink or begone. To this Horace refers, but gives more license: -

Pasco libatis dapibus; prout cuique libido est.

Siccat inaequales calices conviva, solutus

Legibus insanis: seu quis capit acria fortis

Pocula; seu modicis humescit aetius.

Horat. Sat. lib. ii., s. vi., ver. 67.

There, every guest may drink and fill

As much or little as he will;

Exempted from the Bedlam rules

Of roaring prodigals and fools.

Whether, in merry mood or whim,

He fills his goblet to the brim;

Or, better pleased to let it pass,

Is cheerful with a moderate glass.

Francis.

At the Roman feasts there was a person chosen by the cast of dice, who was the Arbiter bibendi, and prescribed rules to the company, which all were obliged to observe. References to this custom may be seen in the same poet. Odar. lib. i., Od. iv., ver. 18: -

Non regna vini sortiere talis.

And in lib. ii., Od. vii., ver. 25: - - Quem Venus arbitrum Dicet bibendi?

Mr. Herbert, in his excellent poem, The Church Porch, has five verses on this vile custom and its rule: -

Drink not the third glass, which thou canst not tame

When once it is within thee, but before

Mayst rule it as thou list; and pour the shame,

Which it would pour on thee, upon the floor.

It is most just to throw that on the ground,

Which would throw me there if I keep the round.

He that is drunken may his mother kill,

Big with his sister; he hath lost the reins;

Is outlawed by himself. All kinds of ill

Did with his liquor slide into his veins.

The drunkard forfeits man; and doth divest

All worldly right, save what he hath by beast.

Nothing too severe can be said on this destructive practice.

Also Vashti the queen - Vashti is a mere Persian word; and signifies a beautiful or excellent woman.

Made a feast for the women - The king, having subdued all his enemies, left no competitor for the kingdom; and being thus quietly and firmly seated on the throne, made this a time of general festivity. As the women of the East never mingle with the men in public, Vashti made a feast for the Persian ladies by themselves; and while the men were in the court of the garden, the women were in the royal house.

He commanded Mehuman - All these are doubtless Persian names; but so disguised by passing through a Hebrew medium, that some of them can scarcely be known. Mehuman signifies a stranger or guest.

We shall find other names and words in this book, the Persian etymology of which may be easily traced.

To bring Vashti the queen - The Targum adds naked.

For she was fair to look on - Hence she had her name Vashti, which signifies beautiful. See Est 1:9.

Vashti refused to come - And much should she be commended for it. What woman, possessing even a common share of prudence and modesty, could consent to expose herself to the view of such a group of drunken Bacchanalians? Her courage was equal to her modesty: she would resist the royal mandate, rather than violate the rules of chaste decorum.

Her contempt of worldly grandeur, when brought in competition with what every modest woman holds dear and sacred, is worthy of observation. She well knew that this act of disobedience would cost her her crown, if not her life also: but she was regardless of both, as she conceived her virtue and honor were at stake.

Her humility was greatly evidenced in this refusal. She was beautiful; and might have shown herself to great advantage, and have had a fine opportunity of gratifying her vanity, if she had any: but she refused to come.

Hail, noble woman! be thou a pattern to all thy sex on every similar occasion! Surely, every thing considered, we have few women like Vashti; for some of the highest of the land will dress and deck themselves with the utmost splendor, even to the selvedge of their fortunes, to exhibit themselves at balls, plays, galas, operas, and public assemblies of all kinds, (nearly half naked), that they may be seen and admired of men, and even, to the endless reproach and broad suspicion of their honor and chastity, figure away in masquerades! Vashti must be considered at the top of her sex: -

Rara avis in terris, nigroque simillima cygno.

A black swan is not half so rare a bird.

To the wise men - Probably the lawyers.

And the next unto him - the seven princes - Probably, the privy counsellors of the king. Which saw the king's face - were at all times admitted to the royal presence.

Vashti - hath not done wrong to the king only - This reasoning or arguing was inconsequent and false. Vashti had not generally disobeyed the king, therefore she could be no precedent for the general conduct of the Persian women. She disobeyed only in one particular; and this, to serve a purpose, Memucan draws into a general consequence; and the rest came to the conclusion which he drew, being either too drunk to be able to discern right from wrong, or too intent on reducing the women to a state of vassalage, to neglect the present favorable opportunity.

The ladies of Persia - שרות saroth, the princesses; but the meaning is very well expressed by our term ladies.

That it be not altered - Let it be inserted among the permanent laws, and made a part of the constitution of the empire. Perhaps the Persians affected such a degree of wisdom in the construction of their laws, that they never could be amended, and should never be repeated. And this we may understand to be the ground of the saying, The laws of the Medes and Persians, that change not.

That every man should bear rule in his own house - Both God's law and common sense taught this from the foundation of the world. And is it possible that this did not obtain in the Persian empire, previously to this edict? The twentieth verse has another clause, That all wives shall give to their husbands honor, both to great and small. This also was universally understood. This law did nothing. I suppose the parade of enactment was only made to deprive honest Vashti of her crown. The Targum adds, "That each woman should speak the language of her husband." If she were even a foreigner, she should be obliged to learn and speak the language of the king. Perhaps there might be some common sense in this, as it would oblige the foreigner to devote much time to study and improvement; and, consequently, to make her a better woman, and a better wife. But there is no proof that this was a part of the decree. But there are so many additions to this book in the principal versions, that we know not what might have made a part of it originally.

Ahasuerus - Many suppose this to be Darius Hystapas, for his kingdom was thus vast, and he subdued India, as Herodotus reports: and one of his wives was called Atossa, differing little from Hadassah, which is Esther's other name, Esth 2:7. Provinces - So seven new provinces were added to those hundred and twenty mentioned, Dan 6:1.

Sat - Was settled in the peaceable possession of it. Shushan - The chief or royal city. Shushan might be the proper name of the palace, which thence was given to the whole city. Here the kings of Persia used to keep their courts in winter, as at Exbatana in summer.

Many days - Making every day a magnificent feast, either for all his princes, or for some of them, who might come to the feast successively, as the king ordered them to do. The Persian feasts are much celebrated in authors, for their length and luxury.

Beds - For in those eastern countries, they did not then sit at tables as we do, but rested or leaned upon beds or couches.

The law - According to this law which the king had now made, that none should compel another to drink more than he pleased. How does this Heathen prince shame many, that are called Christians, who think they do not make their friends welcome, unless they make them drunk, and under pretence of sending the health round, send the sin round, and death with it!

Women - While the king entertained the men. For this was the common custom of the Persians, that men and women did not feast together.

Refused - Being favoured in this refusal by the law of Persia, which was to keep mens wives, and especially queens, from the view of other men.

The times - The histories of former times, what princes have done in such cases as this was.

Saw - Who had constant freedom of access to the king, and familiar converse with him: which is thus expressed, because the Persian kings were very seldom seen by their subjects. Sat - Who were his chief counsellors and officers.

Contempt - Contempt in the wives, and thereupon wrath in the husbands; and consequently strife in families.

1 NOw it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus , (this is Ahasuerus, which reigned from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces .)

Qu. Who was this King? Ans. It is confessed and manifest that this was one of the Kings of Persia: But which of them it was, is not yet agreed, nor is it of any necessity for us now to know. But it is sufficiently evident that this was either▪ 1. Darius Hystaspis, as divers both Jewish and Christian Writers affirm: for his Kingdom was thus vast, and he subdued India, as Herodotus reports: and one of his Wives was called Atossa, which differs little from Hadassah, which is Esthers other name, Esth. 2. 7. Or 2. Xerxes, whose Wife, as Herodotus notes, was called Amestris, which is not much differing from Esther: by whom all these things were transacted whilst he was potent and prosperous, before his unhappy expedition against the Grecians. Or 3. Artaxerxes Longimanus; to whom the characters of Ahasuerus represented in this Book do not disagree. And whereas it is objected that by this account Mordecai must be a man of about 140 Years, and consequently Esther, who is called his Uncles daughter, ch. 2. 7. must be too old to make a Wife for the King; as for Mordecai it may be granted, there being divers instances of persons of greater Age than that in sacred and prophane Historians; and for Esther it may be said that she was his Uncles Grand-Daughter, nothing being more frequent than for the names of sons or daughters to be given to more remote posterity.

So seven new Provinces were added to those 120 mentioned, Dan. 6. 1.

2 That in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sate on the Throne of his kingdom , which was in Shushan the palace ,

i. e. Either was lately advanced to it: or rather was settled in the peaceable possession of it.

Or, the castle: or the chief or royal city, as both Jewish and Christian Interpreters render it. Shushan might be the proper name of the Palace, which thence was given to the whole City. Here the Kings of Persia used to keep their Courts chiefly in Winter, as ordinarily they were in Ecbatana in Summer.

Marginal references: Or, chief city.

3 In the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his Princes, and his servants, the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces being before him.

i. e. The mighty men; the chief Officers of State, and Commanders of all his Forces: whom by this splendid entertainment he endeavoured to oblige and assure to himself.

4 When he shewed the riches of his glorious Kingdom, and the honour of his excellent majesty, many days, even an hundred and fourscore days .

Making every day a magnificent Feast either for all his Princes, or for some of them, who might come to the Feast successively, as the King ordered them to do. The Persian Feasts are much celebrated in Authors for their length and Luxury.

5 And when these days were expired, the king made a feast unto all the people that were present in Shushan the palace, both unto great and small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the kings palace.

Both such as constantly resided there, and such as were come thither upon their occasions, of whatsoever condition or quality.

The Persian Gardens were exceeding large and pleasant.

Marginal references: Heb. found.

6 Where were white, green, and blue hangings fastened with cords of fine linnen and purple, to silver rings, and pillars of marble: the beds were of gold, and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black marble.

For in those Eastern Countries, and ancient times, they did not sit at Tables, as we do, but rested or leaned upon Beds: of which we have many testimonies both in Scripture, as Esth. 7. 8. Amos 2. 8. & 6. 4. Ioh. 13. 23. and in all other Authors.

Marginal references: Or, [illegible: 1 word].; Or, of [illegible: 1 word], [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word], [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word], [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word] of [illegible: 1 word].

8 And the drinking was according to the law, none did compel : for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house, that they should do according to every mans pleasure.

i. e. According to this Law which the King had now made▪ that none should compel another to drink more than he pleased▪ which the Persians, and other loose and heathenish Nations used to do; though that practice was connemned by the wise and sober Heathens, and among others by this great Prince. Or, no man did compel another to drink according to the Law, i. e. as by the Laws or Orders of the Persians prescribed and used in their Feasts they might have done, if not restrained by this Law.

9 Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women , in the royal house which belonged to king Ahasuerus.

Whilest the King entertained the men. For this was the common custom of the Persians, that Men and Women did not feast together, but in several places.

10 On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains , that served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king,

Or, Eunuchs, which were much in use, and in favour in the Eastern Courts, and particularly with the Persian Emperours, as ancient Histories inform us.

Marginal references: Or, [illegible: 1 word].

12 But the queen Vashti refused to come at the kings commandment by his chamberlains: therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him.

Being favoured in this refusal by the Laws and customs of Persia, which was to keep Mens Wives, and especially Queens, as much as might be, from the view of other men.

Marginal references: Heb. [illegible: 1 word] was b[illegible: 1+ letters] [illegible: 1 word] of his [illegible: 1 word].

13 Then the King said to the wise-men, which knew the times , (for so was the kings manner towards all that knew law and judgment .

Either 1. The Histories of former times, what Princes have done in such cases as this was. Or 2. Things done or to be done in time, what was just and fit to be done, or what was the Law and Iudgment in these cases, as the following words explain it, and how and when things were to be done. See my Notes on 1 Chr. 12. 32. Times are oft put in Scripture, and other Authors, for the things done in them, by a common Figure called a Metonymy of the Adjunct.

To wit, to consult with them in all matters of moment.

14 And next unto him was Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, which saw the kings face , and which sate the first in the kingdom .)

Which had constant freedom of access to the King, and familiar converse with him: which is thus expressed, because the Persian Kings were very seldom seen by their Subjects.

Which were his chief Counsellors and Officers, and had the precedency from all others.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word] 14.; [illegible: 1 word]. [illegible: 1 word]. 1[illegible: 1+ letters].

16 And Memucan answered before the king, and the princes, Vashti the queen hath not done wrong to the king onely, but also to all the princes, and to all the people that are in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus.

Who, though last named, spake first, either because the king first asked him; or because he was the chief of them all, either in Dignity, or in Reputation: or because it then was, as now it is in many places, the custom for the youngest Counsellors or Judges to deliver their opinion first.

By giving them an Example and Encouragement to contemn and disobey their Husbands. It is a crime of an high nature, and therefore deserves an exemplary punishment.

18 Likewise shall the ladies of Persia and Media say this day unto all the kings princes, which have heard of the deed of the queen. Thus shall there arise too much contempt and wrath .

Contempt in the Wives, and thereupon wrath in the Husbands; and consequently Strife in Families; which may produce great and general mischiefs.

19 If it please the king , let there go a royal commandment from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians, and the Medes, that it be not altered , that Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus, and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she.

Which this cunning Politician knew it would do.

Which caution was necessary for his own security; for if the Queen should recover her State, and the kings Favour, he was most likely to fall into his displeasure.

Marginal references: Heb. if it [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word] with the King.; Heb. from [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word].; Heb. that it [illegible: 1 word] away. Ch. 8. 8.; Heb. [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word] c[illegible: 1+ letters]panion.

21 And the saying pleased the king and the princes , and the king did according to the word of Memucan:

Partly because their own Authority and Interest was concerned in it: and especially by the singular Providence of God who designed to bring about his own great work by this small occasion.

Marginal references: Heb. was [illegible: 1 word] the eyes of the king.

22 For he sent letters into all the kings provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that it should be published according to the language of every people .

That all sorts of persons, not Men only (who by study or travel many times understand divers Languages) but the Women also might understand it, and therefore be inexcusable if they did not comply with it; for which end it was not only written in each language, for that writing might come but to few hands, but moreover it was published in the several Cities and Towns by such persons as used to publish the Kings Edicts. Others, That he should speak in the language of his own People; i. e. that Men should not in compliance with their Wives, who were oft of other Nations and Languages, inure themselves to it, and bring their Wives Language into the Family; but that men should use their own proper Language, and cause their Wives and Children to use it; this being one sign of Dominion, and therefore frequent after this time among the Greeks and Romans, who, together with their victorious Arms, brought in their Language into other Countries, and in a great measure imposed it upon them.

Marginal references: Heb. that one [illegible: 1 word] publish [illegible: 1+ letters] according to [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1+ letters]guage of [illegible: 1+ letters] people.

The Book of Esther

Introduction

1. Name, Contents, Object, and Unity of the Book of Esther

This book bears the name of אסתּר or אסתּר מגלּת, book of Esther, also briefly that of מגלּה with the Rabbis, from Esther the Jewess, afterwards raised to the rank of queen, to whom the Jews were indebted for their deliverance from the destruction with which they were threatened, as related in this book.

Its contents are as follows: - Ahashverosh, king of Persia, gave, in the third year of his reign, a banquet to the grandees of his kingdom at Susa; and on the seventh day of this feast, when his heart was merry with wine, required the Queen Vashti to appear before his guests and show her beauty. When she refused to come at the king’s commandment, she was divorced, at the proposal of his seven counsellors; and this divorce was published by an edict throughout the whole kingdom, lest the example of the queen should have a bad effect upon the obedience of other wives to their husbands (Est 1). When the king, after his wrath was appeased, began again to feel a tenderness towards his divorced wife, the most beautiful virgins in the whole kingdom were, at the advice of his servants, brought to the house of the women at Susa, that the king might choose a wife at his pleasure. Among these virgins was Esther the Jewess, the foster-daughter and near relative of Mordochai, a Benjamite living in exile, who, when brought before the king, after the customary preparation, so pleased him, that he chose her for his queen. Her intercourse with Mordochai continued after her reception into the royal palace; and during his daily visits in the gate of the palace, he discovered a conspiracy against the life of the king, and thus rendered him an important service (Est 2). Ahashverosh afterwards made Haman, an Agagite, his prime minister or grand visier, and commanded all the king’s servants to pay him royal honours, i.e., to bow down before him. When this was refused by Mordochai, Haman’s indignation was so great, that he resolved to destroy all the Jews in the whole empire. For this purpose he appointed, by means of the lot, both the month and day; and obtained from the king permission to prepare an edict to all the provinces of the kingdom, appointing the thirteenth day of the twelfth month for the extermination of the Jews throughout the whole realm (Est 3:1-15). Mordochai apprised Queen Esther of this cruel command, and so strongly urged her to apply to the king on behalf of her people, that she resolved, at the peril of her life, to appear before him unbidden. When she was so favourably received by him, that he promised beforehand to grant whatever she had to request, even to the half of his kingdom, she first entreated that the king and Haman should eat with her that day. During the repast, the king inquired concerning her request, and she answered that she would declare it on the following day, if the king and Haman would again eat with her (Est 4:1-8). Haman, greatly elated at this distinction, had the mortification, on his departure from the queen, of beholding Mordochai, who did not rise up before him, in the gate of the palace; and returning to his house, formed, by the advice of his wife and friends, the resolution of hanging Mordochai next day upon a gallows; for which purpose he immediately caused a tree fifty cubits high to be prepared (Est 5:9-14). Next night, however, the king, being unable to sleep, caused the records of the kingdom to be read to him, and was thereby reminded of the obligation he was under to Mordochai. When, on this occasion, he learnt that Mordochai had as yet received no reward for his service, he sent for Haman, who had resorted thus early to the court of the palace for the purpose of obtaining the royal permission for the execution of Mordochai, and asked him what should be done to the man whom the King desired to honour. Haman, thinking his honour concerned himself, proposed the very highest, and was by the king’s command obliged, to his extreme mortification, himself to pay this honour to Mordochai, his wife and friends interpreting this occurrence as an omen of his approaching ruin (Est 6:1-14). When the king and Haman afterwards dined with Esther, the queen begged for her life and that of her people, and pointed to Haman as the enemy who desired to exterminate the Jews. Full of wrath at this information, the king went into the garden of the palace; while Haman, remaining in the room, fell at the feet of the queen to beg for his life. When the king, returning to the banquet chamber, saw Haman lying on the queen’s couch, he thought he was offering violence to the queen, passed sentence of death upon him, caused him to be hanged upon the gallows he had erected for Mordochai (Est 7:1-10), and on the same day gave his house to the queen, and made Mordochai his prime minister in the place of Haman (Est 8:1-2). Hereupon Esther earnestly entreated the reversal of Haman’s edict against the Jews; and since, according to the laws of the Medes and Persians, an edict issued by the king and sealed with the seal-royal could not be repealed, the king commanded Mordochai to prepare and publish throughout the whole kingdom another edict, whereby the Jews were permitted, to their great joy and that of many other inhabitants of the realm (Est 8:3-17), not only to defend themselves against the attacks of their enemies on the appointed day, but also to kill and plunder them. In consequence of this, the Jews assembled on the appointed day to defend their lives against their adversaries; and being supported by the royal officials, through fear of Mordochai, they slew in Susa 500, and in the whole kingdom 75,000 men, besides 300 more in Susa on the day following, but did not touch the goods of the slain. They then celebrated in Susa the fifteenth, and in the rest of the kingdom the fourteenth, day of the month Adar, as a day of feasting and gladness (Est 9:1-19). Hereupon Mordochai and Queen Esther sent letters to all the Jews in the kingdom, in which they ordered the yearly celebration of this day, by the name of the feast of Purim, i.e., lots, because Haman had cast lots concerning the destruction of the Jews (Est 9:20-32). In conclusion, the documents in which are described the acts of Ahashverosh and the greatness of Mordochai, who had exerted himself for the good of his people, are pointed out (Est 10:1-3).

From this glance at its contents, it is obvious that the object of this book is to narrate the events in remembrance of which the feast of Purim was celebrated, and to transmit to posterity an account of its origin. The aim of the entire contents of this book being the institution of this festival, with which it concludes, there can be no reasonable doubt of its integrity, which is also generally admitted. Bertheau, however, after the example of J. D. Michaelis, has declared the sections Est 9:20-28 and Est 9:29-32 to be later additions, incapable of inclusion in the closely connected narrative of Est 1-9:19, and regards Est 10:1-3 as differing from it both in matter and language. The sections in question are said to be obviously distinct from the rest of the book. But all that is adduced in support of this assertion is, that the words קיּם, to institute (Est 9:21, Est 9:27, Est 9:29, Est 9:31), סוּף, to come to an end, to cease (Est 9:28), the plural צומות, fasts (Est 9:31), and an allusion to the decree in a direct manner, occur only in these sections. In such a statement, however, no kind of consideration is given to the circumstance that there was no opportunity for the use of קיּם סוּף and the plur. צומות in the other chapters. Hence nothing remains but the direct introduction of the decree, which is obviously insufficient to establish a peculiarity of language. Still weaker is the proof offered of diversity of matter between Est 9:20-32 and Est 9-9:19; Bertheau being unable to make this appear in any way, but by wrongly attributing to the word קיּם the meaning: to confirm a long-existing custom.

2. Historical Character of the Book of Esther

The feast of Purim is mentioned, 2 Macc. 15:36, under the name of Μαρδοχαΐκή ἡμέρα, as a festival existing in the time of Nicanor (about 160 b.c.); and Josephus tells us, Ant. xi. 6. 13, that it was kept by the Jews during a whole week. Now the institution of this festival must have been based upon an historical event similar to that related in this book. Hence even this is sufficient to show that the assertion of Semler, Oeder, and others, that this book contains a fictitious parable (confictam esse universam parabolam), is a notion opposed to common sense. For if this festival has been from of old celebrated by the Jews all over the world, it must owe its origin to an occurrence which affected the whole Jewish people, and the names Purim and Mordochai’s day are a pledge, that the essential contents of this book are based upon an historical foundation. The name Purim (i.e., lots), derived from the Persian, can be suitably explained in no other manner than is done in this book, viz., by the circumstance that lots were cast on the fate of the Jews by a Persian official, who contemplated their extermination, for the purpose of fixing on a favourable day for this act; while the name, Mordochai’s day, preserves the memory of the individual to whom the Jews were indebted for their deliverance. Hence all modern critics admit, that at least an historical foundation is thus guaranteed, while a few doubt the strictly historical character of the whole narrative, and assert that while the feat of Purim was indeed celebrated in remembrance of a deliverance of the Jews in the Persian empire, it was the existence of this festival, and the accounts given by those who celebrated it, which gave rise to the written narrative of the history of Esther (thus Bertheau). On the other hand, the historical character of the whole narrative has been defended not only by Hävernick (Einl.), M. Baumgarten (de fide libri Estherae, 1839), and others, but also, and upon valid grounds, by Staehelin (spec. Einl. in die kanon. BB. des A. T. 51f.). The objections that have been raised to its credibility have arisen, first from the habit of making subjective probability the standard of historical truth, and next from an insufficient or imperfect attention to the customs, manners, and state of affairs at the Persian court on the one hand, or an incorrect view of the meaning of the text on the other. When, e.g., Bertheau as well as Bleek (Einleit. p. 286) says, “The whole is of such a nature that the unprejudiced observer cannot easily regard it as a purely historical narrative,” Cleric. (dissert. de scriptoribus librr. hist. 10) far more impartially and correctly decides: Mirabilis sane est et παράδοξος (quis enim neget?) historia, sed multa mirabilia et a moribus nostris aliena olim apud orientales ut apud omnes alios populos contigerunt. The fact that King Ahashverosh should grant his grand vizier Haman permission to publish an edict commanding the extermination of the Jews throughout his empire, is not challenged by either Bleek or Bertheau; and, indeed, we need not go so far as the despotic states of the East to meet with similar occurrences; the Parisian massacre of St. Bartholomew being a sufficient proof that the apparently incredible may be actual reality.Rosenmüller (bibl. Altertumsk. i. 1, p. 379) calls to mind Mithridates king of Pontus, who, when at war with the Romans, secretly issued an order to all the satraps and local authorities his realm, to assassinate all Romans, without distinction of age or sex, on an appointed day, in consequence of which 80,000 perished on one day; also the pasha of Zaid Mehmed in the sixteenth century, who surprised the nation of the Druses, and put to death all whom he met with (comp. Arvieux, merkw. Nachr. i. p. 391); and then continues: ”It is almost more incredible that a ruler should, from the blindness of religious zeal, either execute or drive out of his realm 100,000 of his most diligent and prosperous subjects; yet the history of modern Europe offers us, in Ferdinand the Catholic, who chased 300,000 Jews from Spain, and Louis XIV, who, after putting some thousands of Protestants to death, banished hundreds of thousands from France, examples of such incredible events.”

And all the other statements of this book, however seemingly unaccountable to us, become conceivable when we consider the character of King Ahashverosh, i.e., as is now generally admitted, of Xerxes, who is described by Greek and Roman historians as a very luxurious, voluptuous, and at the same time an extremely cruel tyrant. A despot who, after his army had been hospitably entertained on its march to Greece, and an enormous sum offered towards defraying the expenses of the war, by Pythius the rich Lydian, could be betrayed into such fury by the request of the latter, that of his five sons who were in the army the eldest might be released, to be the comfort of his declining years, as to command this son to be hewn into two pieces, and to make his army pass between them (Herod. vii. c. 37-39; Seneca, de ira, vii. 17); a tyrant who could behead the builders of the bridge over the Hellespont, because a storm had destroyed the bridge, and command the sea to be scourged, and to be chained by sinking a few fetters (Herod. vii. 35); a debauchee who, after his return from Greece, sought to drive away his vexation at the shameful defeat he had undergone, by revelling in sensual pleasures (Herod. ix. 108f.); so frantic a tyrant was capable of all that is told us in the book of Esther of Ahashverosh.

Bleek’s objections to the credibility of the narrative consist of the following points: a. That it is inconceivable that if the Persian despot had formed a resolution to exterminate all the Jews in his kingdom, he would, even though urged by a favourite, have proclaimed this by a royal edict published throughout all the provinces of his kingdom twelve months previously. In advancing this objection, however, Bleek has not considered that Haman cast lots for the appointment of the day on which his project was to be carried into execution; the Persians being, according to Herod. iii. 128, Cyrop. i. 6. 46, frequently accustomed to resort to the lot; while not only in Strabo’s time, but to the present day, also, everything is with them decided according to the dicta of soothsayers and astrologers. If, then, the lot had declared the day in question to be a propitious one for the matter contemplated, the haughty Haman would not reflect that the premature publication of the edict would afford a portion of the Jews the opportunity of escaping destruction by flight. Such reflections are inconsistent with absolute confidence in the power of magical decisions; and even if what was possible had ensued, he would still have attained his main object of driving the Jews out of the realm, and appropriating their possessions. - b. That at this time Judea, which was then almost wholly reinhabited by Jews, was among the provinces of Persia, and that hence the king’s edict commanded the extermination of almost all the population of that country. This, he says, it is difficult to believe; and not less so, that when the first edict was not repealed, the second, which granted the Jews permission to defend themselves against their enemies, should have resulted everywhere in such success to the Jews, even though, from fear of Mordochai the new favourite, they were favoured by the royal officials, that all should in all countries submit to them, and that they should kill 75,000 men, equally with themselves subjects of the king. To this it may be replied: that Judea was, in relation to the whole Persian realm, a very unimportant province, and in the time of Xerxes, as is obvious from the book of Ezra, by no means “almost wholly,” but only very partially, inhabited by Jews, who were, moreover, regarded with such hostility by the other races dwelling among them, that the execution of the decree cannot appear impossible even here. With regard to the result of the second edict, the slaughter of 75,000 men, this too is perfectly comprehensible. For since, according to Medo-Persian law, the formal repeal of a royal edict issued according to legal form was impracticable, the royal officials would understand the sense and object of the second, and not trouble themselves much about the execution of the first, but, on the contrary, make the second published by Mordochai, who was at that time the highest dignitary in the realm, their rule of action for the purpose of ensuring his favour. Round numbers, moreover, of the slain are evidently given; i.e., they are given upon only approximate statements, and are not incredibly high, when the size and population of the kingdom are considered. The Persian empire, in its whole extent from India to Ethiopia, must have contained a population of at least 100,000,000, and the number of Jews in the realm must have amounted to from two to three millions. A people of from two to three millions would include, moreover, at least from 500,000 to 700,000 capable of bearing arms, and these might in battle against their enemies slay 75,000 men. Susa, the capital, would not have been less than the Stamboul of the present day, and would probably contain at least half a million of inhabitants; and it by no means surpasses the bounds of probability, that in such a town 500 men should be slain in one day, and 300 more on the following, in a desperate street fight. Nor can the numbers stated by looked upon as too high a computation. The figures are only rendered improbable by the notion, that the Jews themselves suffered no loss at all. Such an assumption, however, is by no means justified by the circumstance, that such losses are unmentioned. It is the general custom of the scriptural historians to give in their narratives of wars and battles only the numbers of the slain among the vanquished foes, and not to mention the losses of the victors. We are justified, however, in supposing that the war was of an aggravated character, from the fact that it bore not only a national, but also a religious character. Haman’s wrath against Mordochai was so exasperated by the information that he was a Jews, that he resolved upon the extermination of the people of Mordochai, i.e., of all the Jews in the realm (Est 3:4-6). To obtain the consent of the king, he accused the Jews as a scattered and separated people, whose laws were different from the laws of all other nations, of not observing the laws of the king. This accusation was, “from the standpoint of Parseeism, the gravest which could have been made against the Jews” (Haev. Einl. ii. 1, p. 348). The separation of the Jews from all other people, a consequence of the election of Israel to be the people of God, has at all times inflamed and nourished the hatred of the Gentiles and of the children of this world against them. This hatred, which was revived by the edict of Haman, could not be quenched by the counter-edict of Mordochai. Though this edict so inspired the royal officials with fear of the powerful minister, that they took part with, instead of against the Jews, yet the masses of the people, and especially the populations of towns, would not have paid such respect to it as to restrain their hatred against the Jews. The edict of Mordochai did not forbid the execution of that of Haman, but only allowed the Jews to stand up for their lives, and to slay such enemies as should attack them (Est 8:11). The heathen were not thereby restrained from undertaking that fight against the Jews, in which they were eventually the losers.

When, however, c. Bleek finds it “utterly unnatural” that, after the Jews had slain 500 of their foes in one day in Susa, the king should, at the request of Esther, whose vengeance and thirst of blood were not yet appeased, have granted an edict that the slaughter should be renewed on the following day, when no attack upon the Jews was permitted, his objection rests upon a sheer misunderstanding of the whole affair. The queen only requested that “it should be granted to the Jews in Susa to do to-morrow also, according to the decree of to-day” (Est 9:13), i.e., “to stand for their lives, and slay all who should assault them” (Est 8:11). This petition presupposes that the heathen population of Susa would renew the attack upon the Jews on the next day. Hence it is evident that Bleek’s assertion, that the heathen were not allowed on that day to renew their attack upon the Jews, is an erroneous notion, and one at variance with the text. Together with this erroneous assumption, the reproach of vengeance and bloodthirstiness raised against Esther is also obviated. Her foresight in securing the lives of her people against renewed attacks, betrays neither revenge nor cruelty. Unless the heathen population had attacked the Jews on the second day, the latter would have had no opportunity of slaying their foes. How little, too, the Jews in general were influenced by a desire of vengeance, is shown by the fact so repeatedly brought forward, that they laid not their hand on the spoil of the slain (Est 9:9, Est 9:15), though this was granted them by the royal edict (Est 8:11). - d. Bleek’s remaining objections are based partly upon misrepresentations of the state of affairs, and partly upon erroneous notions of Eastern customs.E.g., the remark that, though all Susa was thrown into consternation by the edict of Haman, it rejoiced greatly at the second; where Bleek has inserted all to make the matter appear incredible by exaggeration. In the text we only read “the city of Susa was perplexed” (Est 3:15), “the city of Susa rejoiced and was glad” (Est 8:15); i.e., in the city of Susa there was in the one instance perplexity, in the other rejoicing. Also that the king published a special decree in all the provinces of his kingdom, that every man should be master in his own house, - a misinterpretation of the passage Est 1:22; see the explanation of this verse. Finally, the difficulty that Esther, as queen-consort, should have concealed her nationality so long as is stated in the narrative, can exist only for those unacquainted with the state of affairs in the harem of an Oriental prince. The Persian monarchs, who had a fresh concubine for each day, would certainly be ignorant of the descent of each; and though, according to Herod. 3:84, the queens were generally of the race of Achaemenides, yet the same historian also relates (3:31) of Cambyses, that the royal δικασταί declared to him, with respect to his marriage with a sister, that: τῷ βασιλεύοντι Περσέων ἐξεῖναι ποιέειν τὸ ἂν βούληται. The case, too, of a concubine being raised to the rank of queen by a Persian monarch is not inconceivable.

If, then, all the objections raised against the credibility of the narrative may by thus disposed of, we are perfectly justified in adhering to a belief in the historical character of the whole book, since even Bleek cannot deny, that some at least of “the customs and arrangements of the Persian court are both vividly and faithfully depicted.” To this must be added the statement of the names of the individuals who take part in the narrative, e.g., the courtiers, Est 1:10; the seven princes of Persia, Est 1:14; the keeper of the women’s houses, Est 2:8 and Est 2:14; the ten sons of Haman, Est 9:7-9, and others; and the reference to the book of the chronicles of the Medes and Persians, as the documents in which not only the acts of Ahashverosh, but also the greatness of Mordochai, were written (Est 10:2). As the numerous and otherwise wholly unknown names could not possibly be invented, so neither can the reference to the book of the chronicles be a mere literary fiction. When, therefore, Bertheau thinks, that the writer of this book, by thus bringing forward so many small details, by stating the names of otherwise unknown individuals, and especially by giving so much accurate information concerning Persian affairs and institutions, - the correctness of which is in all respects confirmed both by the statements of classical authors and our present increased knowledge of Oriental matters, - certainly proves himself acquainted with the scene in which the narrative takes place, with Persian names and affairs, but not possessed also of an historical knowledge of the actual course of events; we can perceive in this last inference only the unsupported decision of a subjectivistic antipathy to the contents of the book.

3. Authorship and Date of the Book of Esther

No certain information concerning the author of this book is obtainable. The talmudic statement in Baba bathr. 15. 1, that it was written by the men of the Great Synagogue, is devoid of historical value; and the opinion of Clem. Al., Aben Ezra, and others, that Mordochai was its author, as is also inferred from Est 9:20 and Est 9:23 by de Wette, is decidedly a mistaken one, - the writer plainly distinguishing in this passage between himself and Mordochai, who sent letters concerning the feast of Purim to the Jews in the realm of Persia. Other conjectures are still more unfounded. The date, too, of its composition can be only approximately determined. The opinion that in Est 9:19 the long existence of the feast of Purim is presupposed, cannot be raised to the rank of a certainty. Nor does the book contain allusions pointing to the era of the Greek universal monarchy. This is admitted by Stähelin, who remarks, p. 178: “The most seemingly valid argument in support of this view, viz., that Persian customs are explained in this book, Est 1:1, Est 1:13 (for Est 7:8, usually cited with these passages, is out of the question, and is the king’s speech in answer to Est 8:5), is refuted by the consideration, that the book was written for the information of Palestinian Jews; while Hävernick, ii. 1, p. 361, refers to a case in Bohaeddin, in which this biographer of Saladin, p. 70, though writing for Arabs, explains an Arabian custom with respect to prisoners of war.” On the other hand, both the reference to the chronicles of the Medes and Persians (Est 10:2), and the intimate acquaintance of the writer with Susa and the affairs of the Persian monarchy, decidedly point to the fact, that the date of its composition preceded the destruction of the Persian empire, and may perhaps have been that of Artaxerxes I or Darius Nothus, about 400 b.c. The omission, moreover, of all reference to Judah and Jerusalem, together with the absence not only of theocratic notions, but of a specially religious view of circumstances, favour the view that the author lived not in Palestine, but in the more northern provinces of the Persian realm, probably in Susa itself. For though his mode of representing events, which does not even once lead him to mention the name of God, is not caused by the irreligiousness of the author, but rather by the circumstance, that he neither wished to depict the persons whose acts he was narrating as more godly than they really were, nor to place the whole occurrence - which manifests, indeed, the dealings of Divine Providence with the Jewish people, but not the dealings of Jahve with the nation of Israel - under a point of view alien to the actors and the event itself, yet a historian acquainted with the theocratic ordinances and relations of Judah would scarcely have been capable of so entirely ignoring them.

4. The Canonicity of the Book of Esther

The book of Esther has always formed a portion of the Hebrew canon. It is included also among the twenty-two books which, according to Josephus, c. Ap. i. 8, were acknowledged by the Jews as δικαίως πεπιστευμένα. For Josephus, who repeatedly asserts, that the history of the Hebrews from Moses to Artaxerxes was written by the prophets and worthy to be believed, relates also in his Jewish Antiquities (l. xi. c. 6) the history of Esther, Mordochai, and Haman. Certain critics have indeed desired to infer, from the statement in the Talmud, Jerush. Megill. 70. 4, that “among the eighty elders who contended against the institution of the feast of Purim by Esther and Mordochai as an innovation in the law, there were more than thirty prophets,” that the Jews did not formerly attribute the same authority to the book of Esther as to the other Scriptures (Movers, loci quidam historiae canonis V. T. p. 28; Bleek, Einl. p. 404); but even Bertheau doubts whether this passage refers to the whole book of Esther. For it treats unambiguously only of the fact Est 9:29-32, which is very specially stated to have been an institution of Esther and Mordochai, and concerning which differences of opinion might prevail among the Rabbis. The further remark of Movers, l.c., that the oldest patristic testimonies to the inclusion of this book in the canon are of such a nature, ut ex iis satis verisimiliter effici possit, eum tunc recens canoni adjectum esse, because it occupies the last place in the series of O.T. writings given by Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome, according to Jewish authority, and because the canons of the Greek Church, which more accurately enumerate the books received by the synagogue, do not contain the book of Esther, is also incorrect. For (1.) the lists of the canonical books of the O.T. given by Origen (in Euseb. hist. eccl. vi. 25) and Epiphanius give these books not according to their order in the Hebrew canon, but to that of the Alexandrinian version, while only Jerome places the book of Esther last. (2.) In the lists of the Greek Church this book is omitted only in that given in Euseb. hist. eccl. iv. 26, from the eclogae of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, and in that of Gregory of Nazianzen, while it is included in those of Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem; a circumstance which leads to the supposition that it might have been omitted by an oversight in transcription in those of Origen and Epiphanius. Only Athanasius (in his epist. fest.), Amphilochius (in the Jambi ad Seleuc.), and the author of the Synopsis Athanasius, who is supposed not to have lived till the tenth century, reckon it among the apocryphal books; while Junilius (of the sixth century) remarks that there were many in his days who doubted the canonicity of the book of Esther. From this it is sufficiently obvious, that these doubts were not founded upon historical tradition, but proceeded only from subjective reasons, and were entertained because offence was taken, first at the non-mention of the name of God in this book, and then at the confessedly apocryphal additions mingled with this book in the Alexandrinian translation. The author of the Synopsis Ath., moreover, expressly says that the Hebrews regarded this book as canonical. The well-known harsh judgments of Luther in his work de servo arbitrio: liber Esther, quamvis hunc habent in canone, dignior omnibus, me judice, qui extra canonem haberetur, and in his Table Talk, are purely subjective.“And while the Doctor was correcting the second book of Maccabees he said: I am so hostile to this book and that of Esther, that I wish they did not exist; they are too Judaizing, and contain many heathenish improprieties.”

Luther could never reconcile himself to this book, because he felt that the saving truths of Scripture were absent from it. The later Jews, on the contrary, exalted it even far above the Thorah and the prophets.Comp. the collection of rabbinical eulogies of this book in Aug. Pfeiffer, thes. herm. p. 597f., and in Carpzov’s introd. i. p. 366.

Later Protestant theologians, too, have, in their efforts to justify the canonicity of this book, over-estimated its canonical value, and attributed to the history therein related, Messianic references which are foreign to its meaning (comp. the verdict given upon it in Carpzov’s Introd. in V. T. p. 369f.). The moderate opinion of Brentius is: hic liber utilis est ad docendam fidem et timorem Dei, ut pii non frangantur adversis, sed invocantes nomen Domini ex fide, accipiant spem salutis; impii vero alieno supplicio terreantur et ad pietatem convertantur. This opinion is one far better founded than the depreciatory decision of modern critics, that this book breathes a spirit of revenge and pride (de Wette-Schrader); or of Bertheau, that “Esther and Mordochai are full of a spirit of revenge and hostility not to Gentile ways, but to the Gentiles themselves, of cruelty, and of ungodly confidence in a victory over the world, by worldly power and the employment of worldly means,” and that this book “belongs to the historical records of the revelation made to Israel, only in so far as it helps to fill up the chasm between the times of the prophets and the days of our Lord.” “The book itself and its position in the canon plainly testify, that the people to whom the victory over the world was promised, separated themselves farther and farther from communion with the holy God, trusted to their own arm and to worldly power, and could not, therefore, but be worsted in their contest with the empire of the times.” Such a verdict is justified neither by the circumstance, that the Jews, who reject Christ’s redemption, understand and over-estimate this book in a carnal manner, nor by the fact, that the name of God does not once occur therein. With respect to the first point, the book itself is not to blame for being misused by Jews who have not accepted the redemption which is by Christ, to nourish a fanatical hatred of all Gentiles. Even if Esther and Mordochai were filled with a spirit of revenge toward the Gentiles, no reproach could in consequence be cast on the book of Esther, which neither praises nor recommends their actions or behaviour, but simply relates what took place without blame or approval. But neither are the accusations raised against Esther and Mordochai founded in truth. The means they took for the deliverance and preservation of their people were in accordance with the circumstances stated. For if the edict promulgated by Haman, and commanding the extermination of the Jews, could not, according to the prevailing law of the Medo-Persians, be repealed, there was no other means left to Mordochai for the preservation of his countrymen from the destruction that threatened them, than the issue of a counter-edict permitting the Jews to fight for their lives against all enemies who should attack them, and conceding to them the same rights against their foes as had been granted to the latter against the Jews by the edict of Haman. The bloodshed which might and must ensue would be the fault neither of Mordochai nor Esther, but of Haman alone. And though Mordochai had irritated the haughty Haman by refusing him adoration, yet no Jew who was faithful to the commands of his God could render to a man that honour and adoration which are due to the Lord only. Besides, even if the offence of which he was thereby guilty against Haman might have incited the latter to punish him individually, it could offer no excuse for the massacre of the entire Jewish nation. As for the second point, viz., the non-mention of the name of God in this book, we have already remarked, 3, that this omission is not caused by a lack of devoutness of reverence, the narrative itself presenting features which lead to an opposite conclusion. In the answer which Mordochai sends to Esther’s objection to appear before the king unbidden, “If thou holdest thy peace, there shall arise help and deliverance for the Jews from another place,” is expressed the assured belief that God would not leave the Jews to perish. To this must be added, both that the Jews express their deep sorrow at the edict of Haman by fasting and lamentation (Est 4:1-3), and that Queen Esther not only prepares for her difficult task of appearing before the king by fasting herself, but also begs to be assisted by the fasting of all the Jews in Susa (Est 4:16). Now fasting was a penitential exercise, and the only form of common worship practised by Jews dwelling among Gentiles; and this penitential exercise was always combined with prayer even among the heathen (comp. Jon 3:5.), though prayer and calling upon God might not be expressly mentioned. Finally, the occasion of this conflict between Jews and Gentiles was a religious one, viz., the refusal of adoration to a man, from fear of transgressing the first commandment. All these things considered, we may with Stähelin appropriate what Lutz in his bibl. Hermeneutik, p. 386, says concerning this book: “A careful survey will suffice to show, that the religious principle predominates in the book of Esther, and that there is a religious foundation to the view taken of the occurrence. For it is represented as providential, as an occurrence in which, although the name of God is unmentioned, a higher Power, a Power on the side of Israel, prevails. Even in single features a closer inspection will plainly recognise a religious tone of feeling, while the whole book is pervaded by religious moral earnestness.” It is this religious foundation which has obtained and secured its position in the canon of the inspired books of the O.T. The book is a memorial of the preservation of the Jewish people, during their subjection to a universal empire, by means of a special and providential disposition of secular events, and forms in this respect a supplement to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which relate the restoration of the Jewish community to the land of their fathers.

On the additions to the book of Esther in the Alexandrinian version, which Luther, after the example of Jerome, excluded from the book and relegated to the Apocrypha under the title of Stücke in Esther, comp. my Lehrb. der Einleitung, 237, and O. F. Fritzsche’s kurzgef. exeget. Hdb. zu den Apokryphen des N. T. p. 68f.

For the exegetic literature, see Lehrb. der Einl. v. 150. Comp. also E. Ph. L. Calmberg, liber Esterae interpretatione latina brevique commentario illustr., Hamb. 1837, 4, and Bertheau’s Commentary, quoted p. 12.

The Banquet of King Ahashverosh and the Divorce of Queen Vashti - Esther 1

Ahashverosh, king of Persia, gave, in the third year of his reign, a banquet to the grandees of his kingdom then assembled in Susa, for the purpose of showing them the greatness and glory of his kingdom; while the queen at the same time made a feast for the women in the royal palace (Est 1:1-9). On the seventh day of the feast, the king, “when his heart was merry with wine,” sent a message by his chief courtiers to the queen, commanding her to appear before him, to show the people and the princes her beauty, and on her refusal to come, was greatly incensed against her (Est 1:10-12). Upon inquiring of his astrologers and princes what ought in justice to be done to the queen on account of this disobedience, they advised him to divorce Vashti by an irrevocable decree, and to give her dignity to another and better; also to publish this decree throughout the whole kingdom (Est 1:13-20). This advice pleasing the king, it was acted upon accordingly (Est 1:21 and Est 1:22).

The banquet. Est 1:1-3 mark a period. משׁתּה עשׂה, which belongs to ויהי, does not follow till Est 1:3, and even then the statement concerning the feast is again interrupted by a long parenthesis, and not taken up again and completed till Est 1:5. On the use of ויהי in historical narratives at the beginning of relations having, as in the present instance and Rth 1:1, no reference to a preceding narrative, see the remark on Jos 1:1. Even when no express reference to any preceding occurrence takes place, the historian still puts what he has to relate in connection with other historical occurrences by an “and it came to pass.” Ahashverosh is, as has already been remarked on Ezra 4, Xerxes, the son of Darius Hystaspis. Not only does the name אחשׁורושׁ point to the Old-Persian name Ks'ayars'a (with א prosthetic), but the statements also concerning the extent of the kingdom (Est 1:1; Est 10:1), the manners and customs of the country and court, the capricious and tyrannical character of Ahashverosh, and the historical allusions are suitable only and completely to Xerxes, so that, after the discussions of Justi in Eichhorn’s Repert. xv. pp. 3-38, and Baumgarten, de fide, etc., pp. 122-151, no further doubt on the subject can exist. As an historical background to the occurrences to be delineated, the wide extent of the kingdom ruled by the monarch just named is next described: “He is that Ahashverosh who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces.” מדינה ... שׁבע is not an accusative dependent on מלך, he ruled 127 provinces, for מלך, to reign, is construed with על or בּ, but is annexed in the form of a free apposition to the statement: “from India to Cush;” as also in Est 8:9. הדּוּ is in the Old-Persian cuneiform inscriptions, Hidhu; in Zend, Hendu; in Sanscrit, Sindhu, i.e., dwellers on the Indus, for Sindhu means in Sanscrit the river Indus; comp. Roediger in Gesenius, Thes. Append. p. 83, and Lassen, Indische Alterthumsk. i. p. 2. כּוּשׁ is Ethiopia. This was the extent of the Persian empire under Xerxes. Mardonius in Herod. 7:9 names not only the Sakers and Assyrians, but also the Indians and Ethiopians as nations subject to Xerxes. Comp. also Herod. 7:97, 98, and 8:65, 69, where the Ethiopians and Indians are reckoned among the races who paid tribute to the Persian king and fought in the army of Xerxes. The 127 מדינות, provinces, are governmental districts, presided over, according to Est 8:9, by satraps, pechahs, and rulers. This statement recalls that made in Dan 6:2, that Darius the Mede set over his kingdom 120 satraps. We have already shown in our remarks on Dan 6:2 that this form of administration is not in opposition to the statement of Herod. iii. 89f., that Darius Hystaspis divided the kingdom for the purpose of taxation into twenty ἀρχαί which were called σατραπηΐ́αι. The satrapies into which Darius divided the kingdom generally comprised several provinces. The first satrapy, e.g., included Mysia and Lydia, together with the southern part of Phrygia; the fourth, Syria and Phoenicia, with the island of Cyprus. The Jewish historians, on the other hand, designate a small portion of this fourth satrapy, viz., the region occupied by the Jewish community (Judah and Benjamin, with their chief city Jerusalem), as מדינה, Ezr 2:1; Neh 1:3; Neh 7:6; Neh 11:3. Consequently the satrapies of Darius mentioned in Herodotus differ from the medinoth of Dan 6:2, and Est 1:1; Est 8:9. The 127 medinoth are a division of the kingdom into geographical regions, according to the races inhabiting the different provinces; the list of satrapies in Herodotus, on the contrary, is a classification of the nations and provinces subject to the empire, determined by the tribute imposed on them.

Est 1:2

The words: in those days, take up the chronological statement of Est 1:1, and add thereto the new particular: when King Ahashverosh sat on the throne of his kingdom in the citadel of Susa. שׁבת does not involve the notion of quiet and peaceable possession after the termination of wars (Clericus, Rambach), but that of being seated on the throne with royal authority. Thus the Persian kings are always represented upon a raised seat or throne, even on journeys and in battle. According to Herod. vii. 102, Xerxes watched the battle of Thermopylae sitting upon his throne. And Plutarch (Themistocl. c. 13) says the same of the battle of Salamis. Further examples are given by Baumg. l.c. p. 85f. On the citadel of Susa, see Neh 1:1, and remarks on Dan 8:2.

Est 1:3 “In the third year of his reign he made a feast to all his princes and his servants, when the forces of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, were before him.” משׁתּה עשׂה, to make, to prepare, i.e., to give, a feast; comp. Gen 21:8. The princes and the servants are, all who were assembled about him in Susa. These are specified in the words which follow as חיל פ. We might supply ל before חיל from the preceding words, (viz.) the forces, etc.; but this would not suit the לפניו at the end of the verse. For this word shows that an independent circumstantial clause begins with חיל, which is added to call attention to the great number of princes and servants assembled at Susa (Bertheau): the forces of Persia ... were before him: when they were before him. By חיל, the host, the forces, Bertheau thinks the body-guard of the king, which, according to Herod. vii. 40, consisted of 2000 selected horsemen, 2000 lancers, and 10,000 infantry, is intended. There is, however, no adequate reason for limiting חיל to the body-guard. It cannot, indeed, be supposed that the whole military power of Persia and Media was with the king at Susa; but חיל without כּל can only signify an élite of the army, perhaps the captains and leaders as representing it, just as “the people” is frequently used for “the representatives of the people.” The Persians and Medes are always named together as the two kindred races of the ruling nation. See Dan 6:9, who, however, as writing in the reign of Darius the Mede, places the Medes first and the Persians second, while the contrary order is observed here when the supremacy had been transferred to the Persians by Cyrus. On the form פּרס, see rem. on Ezr 1:1. After the mention of the forces, the Partemim, i.e., nobles, magnates (see on Dan 1:3), and the princes of the provinces are named as the chief personages of the civil government.

Est 1:4-6 “When he showed the glorious riches of his kingdom and the excellent honour of his greatness many days, one hundred and eighty days.” This verse has been understood by most expositors as stating that the king magnificently and splendidly entertained all the grandees mentioned in Est 1:3 for a full half-year, and gave them a banquet which lasted 180 days. Clericus supposes proceedings to have been so arranged, that the proceres omnium provinciarum were not entertained at one and the same time, but alii post alios, because all could not be absent together per sex menses a suis provinciis. Bertheau, however, thinks that the historian did not purpose to give an exact and graphic description of the proceeding, but only to excite astonishment, and that they who are astonished will not inquire as to the manner in which all took place. The text, however, does not say, that the feast lasted 180 days, and hence offers no occasion for such a view, which is founded on a mistaken comprehension of Est 1:4, which combines וגו בּהראתו with משׁתּה עשׂה of Est 1:3, while the whole of Est 1:4 is but a further amplification of the circumstantial clause: when the forces, etc., were before him; the description of the banquet not following till Est 1:5, where, however, it is joined to the concluding words of Est 1:4 : “when these (180) days were full, the king made a feast to all the people that were found in the citadel of Susa, from great to small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the king’s house.” This verse is thus explained by Bertheau: after the soldiers, nobles, and princes of the district had been entertained for six months, all the male inhabitants of Susa were also entertained in a precinct of the palace garden, the women being feasted by Vashti the queen in the palace (Est 1:9), It is, however, obvious, even from Est 1:11, which says that on the seventh day of this banquet the king commanded the queen to appear “to show the people and the princes her beauty,” that such a view of the occurrence is inadmissible. For this command presupposes, that the people and princes were assembled at the king’s banquet; while, according to the view of Bertheau and older expositors, who insist on two banquets, one lasting 180 days, the other seven, the latter was given to the male inhabitants of Susa only. The princes and people of the whole kingdom did not, however, dwell in Susa. These princes and people, to whom the queen was to show her beauty, are undoubtedly the princes and servants of the king, the forces of Persia and Media, and the nobles and princes of the provinces enumerated in Est 1:3. With this agrees also the description of the guests invited to the seven days feast. בּשׁוּשׁן הנּמצאים כּל־העם does not signify “all the inhabitants of Susa,” but all then present, i.e., then assembled in the citadel of Susa. הנּמצאים used of persons means, those who for some purpose are found or present in any place, in distinction from its usual inhabitants; comp. 1Ch 29:17; 2Ch 34:32; Ezr 8:25; and העם does not here signify people in the sense of population, but people who are met in a certain place, and is used both here and Neh 12:38 of an assembly of nobles and princes. קטן ועד למגּדול, moreover, does not mean old and young, but high and low, the greater and lesser servants (עבדים) of the king, and informs us that of those assembled at Susa, both princes and servants participated without exception in the banquet.

This view of Est 1:3-5 is confirmed by the consideration, that if the seven days banquet were a different one from that mentioned in Est 1:3, there could be no reason for naming the latter, which would then be not only entirely unconnected with the narrative, but for which no object at all would be stated; for בּהראתו cannot be translated, as in the Vulgate, by ut ostenderet, because, as Bertheau justly remarks, ב cannot indicate a purpose. From all these reasons it is obvious, that the feast of which further particulars are given in Est 1:5-8 is the same משׁתּה which the king, according to Est 1:3, gave to his שׂרים and עבדים, and that the text, rightly understood, says nothing of two consecutive banquets. The sense of Est 1:3-5 is accordingly as follows: King Ahasuerus gave to his nobles and princes, when he had assembled them before him, and showed them the glorious riches of his kingdom and the magnificence of his greatness for 180 days, after these 180 days, to all assembled before him in the fortress of Susa, a banquet which lasted seven days. The connection of the more particular description of this banquet, by means of the words: when these (the previously named 180) days were over, following upon the accessory clause, Est 1:4, is anacoluthistic, and the anacoluthon has given rise to the misconception, by which Est 1:5 is understood to speak of a second banquet differing from the משׁתּה of Est 1:3. The purpose for which the king assembled the grandees of his kingdom around him in Susa fore a whole half-year is not stated, because this has no connection with the special design of the present book. If, however, we compare the statement of Herod. vii. 8, that Xerxes, after the re-subjection of Egypt, summoned the chief men of his kingdom to Susa to take counsel with them concerning the campaign against Greece, it is obvious, that the assembly for 180 days in Susa, of the princes and nobles mentioned in the book of Esther, took place for the purpose of such consultation. When, too, we compare the statement of Herod. vii. 20, that Xerxes was four years preparing for this war, we receive also a corroboration of the particular mentioned in Est 1:3, that he assembled his princes and nobles in the third year of his reign. In this view “the riches of his kingdom,” etc., mentioned in Est 1:4, must not be understood of the splendour and magnificence displayed in the entertainment of his guests, but referred to the greatness and resources of the realm, which Xerxes descanted on to his assembled magnates for the purpose of showing them the possibility of carrying into execution his contemplated campaign against Greece. The banquet given them after the 180 days of consultation, was held in the court of the garden of the royal palace. בּיתן is a later form of בּית, which occurs only here and Est 7:7-8. חצר, court, is the space in the park of the royal castle which was prepared for the banquet. The fittings and furniture of this place are described in Est 1:6. “White stuff, variegated and purple hangings, fastened with cords of byssus and purple to silver rings and marble pillars; couches of gold and silver upon a pavement of malachite and marble, mother-of-pearl and tortoise-shell.” The description consists of mere allusions to, or exclamations at, the splendour of the preparations. In the first half of the verse the hangings of the room, in the second, the couches for the guests, are noticed. חוּר from חור means a white tissue of either linen or cotton. Bertheau supposes that the somewhat larger form of ch is intended to denote, even by the size of letter employed, the commencement of the description. כּרפּס, occurring in Sanscrit, Persian, Armenian, and Arabic, in Greek κάρπασος, means originally cotton, in Greek, according to later authorities, a kind of fine flax, here undoubtedly a cotton texture of various colours. תּכלת, deep blue, purple. The hangings of the space set apart were of these materials. Blue and white were, according to Curtius Est 6:6, Est 6:4, the royal colours of the Persians; comp. M. Duncker, Gesch. des Alterthums, ii. pp. 891 and 951 of the third edition, in which is described also the royal table, p. 952. The hangings were fastened (אחוּז) with cords of white byssus and purple to rings and pillars of white marble. מטּות, couches (divans) of gold and silver, i.e., covered with cloth woven of gold and silver thread, were prepared for the guests at the feast. These couches were placed upon a tesselated, mosaic-like floor; the tesselation being composed of stones of various colours. בּהט, in Arabic a mock stone, in lxx σμαραγδίτης, a spurious emerald, i.e., a green-coloured stone resembling the emerald, probably malachite or serpentine. שׁשׁ is white marble; דּר, Arabic darrun, darratun, pearl, lxx πίννινος λίθος, a pearl-like stone, perhaps mother-of-pearl. סחרת, a kind of dark-coloured stone (from סחר = שׁחר, to be dark), black, black marble with shield-like spots (all three words occur only here).

Est 1:7-8

The entertainment: “And drinks poured into vessels of gold! and vessels differing from vessels, and royal wine in abundance, according to the hand of a king. (Est 1:8) And the drinking was according to law; nine did compel: for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house to do according to every one’s pleasure.” השׁקות, inf. Hiph., to give to drink, to hand drinks, is used substantively. The golden drinking vessels were of various kinds, and each differing in form from another. Great variety in drinking vessels pertained to the luxury of Persians; comp. Xenoph. Cyrop. viii. 8, 18. מלכוּת יין is wine from the royal cellar, therefore costly wine. Many interpreters understand it of the Chalybonian wine, which the Persian kings used to drink. See rem. on Eze 27:18. המּלך כּיד, according to the hand of the king, i.e., according to royal bounty; comp. 1Ki 10:13. The words: “the drinking was according to law, none did compel,” are generally understood to say, that the king abolished for this banquet, the prevailing custom of pledging his guests. According to Grecian information (see Baumgarten, p. 12f.), an exceedingly large quantity of wine was drunk at Persian banquets. This sense of the words is not, however, quite certain. The argument of Baumgarten, Si hic mos vulgaris fuisset in epulis regiis, sine dubio haec omnia non commemorata essent, no more holds good than his further remark: formulam illam אנס אין כּדּת non puto adhibitam fuisse, nisi jam altera contraria אנס כּדּת solemnis esset facta. The historian can have noticed this only because it was different from the Jewish custom. Bertheau also justly remarks: “We are not told in the present passage, that the king, on this occasion, exceptionally permitted moderation, especially to such of his guests as were, according to their ancestral customs, addicted to moderation, and who would else have been compelled to drink immoderately. For the words with which this verse concludes, which they imply also a permission to each to drink as little as he chose, are specially intended to allow every one to take much. על יסּד, to appoint concerning, i.e., to enjoin, comp. 1Ch 9:22. בּית רב, those over the house, i.e., the court officials.

Est 1:9-11

Vashti the queen also gave a banquet to the women in the royal house (palace) which belonged to King Ahashverosh, probably in the royal apartments of the palace, which were placed at her disposal for this great feast to be given to the women. The name Vashti may be compared with the Old-Persian vahista, i.e., optimus. In Persian šty, means a beautiful woman. This statement serves as an introduction to the scene which follows. Est 1:10 and Est 1:11. On the seventh, i.e., the last day of the banquet, when the king’s heart was merry with wine, he commanded his seven chamberlains to bring Vashti the queen before him, with the royal crown, to show here beauty to the people and princes. וגו לב כּטוב, when the heart of the king was merry through wine, i.e., when the wine had made him merry, comp. 2Sa 13:28; Jdg 16:25. It was the office of the seven eunuchs who served before the king (את־פּני משׁרת like 1Sa 2:18) to be the means of communication between him and the women, and to deliver to them messages on the part of the monarch. Their number, seven, was connected with that of the Amshaspands; see rem. on Est 1:14. The attempts made to explain their several names are without adequate foundation; nor would much be gained thereby, the names being of no significance with respect to the matter in question. In the lxx the names vary to some extent. The queen was to appear with the crown on her head (כּתר, κίδαρις or κίταρις, a high turban terminating in a point), and, as is self-evident, otherwise royally apparelled. The queen was accustomed on ordinary occasions to take her meals at the king’s table; comp. Herod. ix. 110. There is, however, an absence of historical proof, that she was present at great banquets. The notice quoted from Lucian in Brissonius, de regio Pers. princ. i. c. 103, is not sufficient for the purpose.

Est 1:12

The queen refused to appear at the king’s command as delivered by the eunuchs, because she did not choose to stake her dignity as a queen and a wife before his inebriated guests. The audacity of Persians in such a condition is evident from the history related Herod. Est 1:18.

Est 1:13-15

The king, greatly incensed at this disobedience to his behest, inquired of his wise men what was to be done to Queen Vashti according to law. These wise men are Est 1:13 designated as those “who knew the times,” i.e., astrologers and magi, who give counsel according to celestial phenomena; comp. the wise men of Babylon, Dan 2:27; Dan 5:15; Isa 44:25; Isa 47:13; Jer 50:35. Of these he inquires, “for thus was the business of the king conducted before all that knew law and judgment.” דּבר here does not signify word or speech, but matter, business; and the meaning of this parenthetical sentence is, that in every matter, the king, before deciding, applied to those who were skilled in law and judgment to hear their opinions concerning it. With this is joined a second explanatory parenthetical sentence, Est 1:14 : “And those next him were Carshena, etc., the seven princes of the Persians and Medes, who behold the king’s countenance, who hold the first seat in his kingdom.” אליו הקּרב is indefinite, and may be understood as expressing the plural. It is perhaps questionable how this clause should be combined with what precedes, whether with ודין דּת כּל־ידעי, before all that knew law and judgment and those next him, or with לחכמים, Est 1:13 : he spoke to the wise men ... and those next him. In any case the sense is, that the seven princes of the Persians and Medes were also numbered either among the wise men who knew the times, or those who were skilled in the law. These seven princes are the seven king’s counsellors of Ezr 7:14, and by their number of seven form a counterpart to the seven Amshaspands. They who see the face of the king, i.e., are allowed direct intercourse with him. Herod. iii. 84 relates of the seven princes who conspired the overthrow of the pretended Smerdis, that they resolved, that it should be permitted them to present themselves unannounced before the future king. Hence many expositors identify these seven princes with the authorities called the seven counsellors, but without sufficient grounds. The number seven frequently recurs, - comp. the seven eunuchs, Est 1:5, the seven maidens who waited on Est 2:9, - and refers in the present case to the seven Amshaspands, in others to the days of the week, or the seven planets. ראשׁנה היּשׁבים, who sit first, i.e., in the highest place, i.e., constitute the highest authority in the realm. What the king said (Est 1:13) does not follow till Est 1:15 : “According to law, what is to be done to Queen Vashti, because she has not done the word of the king,” i.e., not obeyed his command by the eunuchs? כּדת, according to law, legally, is placed first because it is intended emphatically to assert that the proceeding is to be in conformity with the law. עשׂה with בּ, to inflict something on any one.

Est 1:16-18

The counsel of the wise men. Est 1:16. Memucan, who was the last mentioned in Est 1:14, comes forward as spokesman for the rest, and declares before the king and the princes, i.e., in a solemn assembly, and evidently as the result of a previous joint consultation: Vashti the queen has not done wrong to the king alone, but also to all the princes and all the people, because the example of the queen will lead all the Median and Persian wives to despise their husbands. Therefore an irrevocable edict is to be published decreeing the divorce of Queen Vashti, and this law published throughout the whole realm, that all wives may show honour to their husbands. Vashti has not transgressed against the king alone (Est 1:16), but against all the princes and people in all the provinces of King Ahashverosh (Est 1:16). In what respect, then, is the latter assertion true? We are told Est 1:17 and Est 1:18. “For the deed of the queen will come abroad to (על for אל) all women, to bring their husbands into contempt in their eyes (the infin. להבזות stating the result), while they will say,” etc. (the suffix of בּאמרם relates to the women, who will appeal to the disobedience of the queen). Est 1:18. “And this day (i.e., already) the princesses of the Persians and Medians, who hear of the act of the queen (דּבר, not the word, but the thing, i.e., her rejection of her husband’s command), will tell it to all the princes of the king, and (there will be) enough contempt and provocation. קצף is an outburst of anger; here, therefore, a provocation to wrath. Bertheau makes the words זק בז וּכדי the object of תּאמרנה, which, after the long parenthesis, is united to the copula by w, and for, “to speak contempt and wrath,” reads: to speak contemptuously in wrath. But this change cannot be substantiated. The expression, to speak wrath, is indeed unexampled, but that is no reason for making קצף stand for בּקצף, the very adoption of such an ellipsis showing, that this explanation is inadmissible. The words must be taken alone, as an independent clause, which may be readily completed by יהיה: and contempt and wrath will be according to abundance. כּדי is a litotes for: more than enough. The object of תּאמרנה must be supplied from the context: it - that is, what the queen said to her husband. In the former verse Memucan was speaking of all women; here (Est 1:18) he speaks only of the princesses of the Persians and Medes, because these are staying in the neighbourhood of the court, and will immediately hear of the matter, and “after the manner of the court ladies and associates of a queen will quickly follow, and appeal to her example” (Berth.).

Est 1:19-20

That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she. After this argument on the queen’s conduct, follows the proposal: “If it please the king (על טּוב like Neh 2:5), let there go from him a word of the kingdom (i.e., a royal edict), and let it be written (entered) in the laws of the Persians and the Medes, and not pass away, that Vashti come no more before King Ahashverosh; and let the king give her queenship (her royal rank) to another who is better than she.” An edict issued by the king, entered among the laws of the Persians and Medes, and sealed with the royal signet (Est 8:8), does not pass away, i.e., remains in force, is irrevocable (comp. Dan 6:9). The counsellors press for the issue of such an edict, for the purpose of making it impossible to the king to take Vashti again into favour, lest they should experience her vengeance on the restoration of her influence. רעוּתהּ, her companion, is any other woman, Vashti being here regarded merely as a woman. הטּובה includes both beauty and good behaviour (Berth.). By this means, add the counsellors in Est 1:20, all the ill effects of Vashti’s contumacy will be obviated. “And when the king’s decree, which he shall make, is heard in his whole kingdom, for it is great, all wives shall give honour to their husbands, from great to small.” פּתגּן is according to the Keri to be pointed as the constructive state, פּתגּם. The expression עשׂה פּתגּן is explained by the circumstance, that פתגם signifies not only edict, decree, but also thing (see on Dan 3:16): to do a thing. In the present verse also it might be so understood: when the thing is heard which the king will do in his whole kingdom. The parenthetical clause, for it is great, is intended to flatter the king’s vanity, and induce an inclination to agree to the proposal. “From great to small” signifies high and low, old and young.

Est 1:21-22

The saying pleased the king and the princes, and the king carried it into execution. He sent letters into all his provinces to make known his commands, and to let all husbands know, that they were to bear rule in their own houses. “In every province according to its writing, and to every people according to their speech” (comp. Est 8:9), that his will might be clearly understood by all the subjects of his wide domain, who spoke different languages and used different alphabetical characters. The contents of these letters follow in וגו להיות, that every man should be master in his own house. These words state only the chief matter and object of the edict; but they presuppose that the fact which gave rise to the decree, viz., the refusal of Vashti, and her consequent deposition, were also mentioned. The last words: “and that he shall speak according to the language of his people,” are obscure. Older expositors understand them to mean, that every man was to speak only his native language in his house, so that in case he had a foreign wife, or several who spoke other languages, they might be obliged to learn his language, and to use that alone. Bertheau, on the other hand, objects that such a sense is but imported into the words, and in no wise harmonizes with the context. Both these assertions are, however, unfounded. In the words, the man shall speak according to the language of his people, i.e., he shall speak his native tongue in his house, it is implied that no other language was to be used in the house, and the application of this law to foreign wives is obvious from the context. The rule of the husband in the house was to be shown by the fact, that only the native tongue of the head of the house was to be used in the family. Thus in a Jewish family the Ashdodite or any other language of the wife’s native land could not have been used, as we find to have been the case in Judaea (Neh 13:23). All other explanations are untenable, as has been already shown by Baumgarten, p. 20; and the conjecture set up after Hitzig by Bertheau, that instead of עמּו כּלשׁון we should read עמּו כּל־שׁוה, every one shall speak what becomes him, gives not only a trivial, and not at all an appropriate thought, but is refuted even by the fact that not עם שׁוה, but only ל שׁוה (comp. Est 3:8) could bear the meaning: to be becoming to any one. Such a command may, indeed, appear strange to us; but the additional particular, that every man was to speak his native tongue, and to have it alone spoken, in his own house, is not so strange as the fact itself that an edict should be issued commanding that the husband should be master in the house, especially in the East, where the wife is so accustomed to regard the husband as lord and master. Xerxes was, however, the author of many strange facts besides this.

Esther

How the providence of God watched over the Jews that had returned out of captivity to their own land, and what great and kind things were done for them, we read in the two foregoing books; but there were many who staid behind, having not zeal enough for God's house, and the holy land and city, to carry them through the difficulties of a removal thither. These, one would think, should have been excluded the special protection of Providence, as unworthy the name of Israelites; but our God deals not with us according to our folly and weakness. We find in this book that even those Jews who were scattered in the provinces of the heathen were taken care of, as well as those who were gathered in the land of Judea, and were wonderfully preserved, when doomed to destruction and appointed as sheep for the slaughter. Who drew up this story is uncertain. Mordecai was as able as any man to relate, on his own knowledge, the several passages of it; quorum pars magna fuit—for he bore a conspicuous part in it; and that he wrote such an account of them as was necessary to inform his people of the grounds of their observing the feast of Purim we are told (ch. ix. 20, Mordecai wrote these things, and sent them enclosed in letters to all the Jews), and therefore we have reason to think he was the penman of the whole book. It is the narrative of a plot laid against the Jews to cut them all off, and which was wonderfully disappointed by a concurrence of providences. The most compendious exposition of it will be to read it deliberately all together at one time, for the latter events expound the former and show what providence intended in them. The name of God is not found in this book; but the apocryphal addition to it (which is not in the Hebrew, nor was ever received by the Jews into the canon), containing six chapters, begins thus, Then Mordecai said, God has done these things. But, though the name of God be not in it, the finger of God is, directing many minute events for the bringing about of his people's deliverance. The particulars are not only surprising and very entertaining, but edifying and very encouraging to the faith and hope of God's people in the most difficult and dangerous times. We cannot now expect such miracles to be wrought for us as were for Israel when they were brought out of Egypt, but we may expect that in such ways as God here took to defeat Haman's plot he will still protect his people. We are told, I. How Esther came to be queen and Mordecai to be great at court, who were to be the instruments of the intended deliverance, ch. i., ii. II. Upon what provocation, and by what arts, Haman the Amalekite obtained an order for the destruction of all the Jews, ch. iii. III. The great distress the Jews, and their patriots especially, were in thereupon, ch. iv. IV. The defeating of Haman's particular plot against Mordecai's life, ch. v.-vii. V. The defeating of his general plot against the Jews, ch. viii. VI. The care that was taken to perpetuate the remembrance of this, ch. ix., x. The whole story confirms the Psalmist's observation (Ps. xxxvii. 12, 13), The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The Lord shall laugh at him; he sees that his day is coming.

Several things in this chapter itself are very instructive and of great use; but the design of recording the story of it is to show how way was made for Esther to the crown, in order to her being instrumental to defeat Haman's plot, and this long before the plot was laid, that we may observe and admire the foresight and vast reaches of Providence. "Known unto God are all his works" before-hand. Ahasuerus the king, I. In his height feasts all his great men, ver. 1-9. II. In his heat he divorces his queen, because she would not come to him when he sent for her, ver. 10-22. This shows how God serves his own purposes even by the sins and follies of men, which he would not permit if he know not how to bring good out of them.

The Feast of Ahasuerus. (b. c. 519.)

1 Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus which reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces:) 2 That in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the palace, 3 In the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him: 4 When he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty many days, even a hundred and fourscore days. 5 And when these days were expired, the king made a feast unto all the people that were present in Shushan the palace, both unto great and small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the king's palace; 6 Where were white, green, and blue, hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble: the beds were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black, marble. 7 And they gave them drink in vessels of gold, (the vessels being diverse one from another,) and royal wine in abundance, according to the state of the king. 8 And the drinking was according to the law; none did compel: for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house, that they should do according to every man's pleasure. 9 Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women in the royal house which belonged to king Ahasuerus.

Which of the kings of Persia this Ahasuerus was the learned are not agreed. Mordecai is said to have been one of those that were carried captive from Jerusalem (ch. ii. 5, 6), whence it should seem that this Ahasuerus was one of the first kings of that empire. Dr. Lightfoot thinks that he was that Artaxerxes who hindered the building of the temple, who is called also Ahasuerus (Ezra iv. 6, 7), after his great-grandfather of the Medes, Dan. ix. 1. We have here an account,

I. Of the vast extent of his dominion. In the time of Darius and Cyrus there were but 120 princes ( Dan. vi. 1); now there were 127, from India to Ethiopia, v. 1. It had become an over-grown kingdom, which in time would sink with its own weight, and, as usual, would lose its provinces as fast as it got them. If such vast power be put into a bad hand, it is able to do so much the more mischief; but, if into a good hand, it is able to do so much the more good. Christ's kingdom is, or shall be, far larger than this, when the kingdoms of the world shall all become his; and it shall be everlasting.

II. Of the great pomp and magnificence of his court. When he found himself fixed in his throne, the pride of his heart rising with the grandeur of his kingdom, he made a most extravagant feast, wherein he put himself to vast expense and trouble only to show the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty, v. 4. This was vain glory, an affection of pomp to no purpose at all; for none questioned the riches of his kingdom, nor offered to vie with him for honour. If he had shown the riches of his kingdom and the honour of his majesty, as some of his successors did, in contributing largely towards the building of the temple and the maintaining of the temple service (Ezra vi. 8, vii. 22), it would have turned to a much better account. Two feasts Ahasuerus made:— 1. One for his nobles and princes, which lasted a hundred and eighty days, v. 3, 4. Not that he feasted the same persons every day for all that time, but perhaps the nobles and princes of one province one day, of another province another day, while thus he and his constant attendants fared sumptuously every day. The Chaldee paraphrast (who is very bold in his additions to the story of this book) says that there had been a rebellion among his subjects and that this feast was kept for joy of the quashing of it. 2. Another was made for all the people, both great and small, which lasted seven days, some one day and some another; and, because no house would hold them, they were entertained in the court of the garden, v. 5. The hangings with which the several apartments were divided or the tents which were there pitched for the company, were very fine and rich; so were the beds or benches on which they sat, and the pavement under their feet, v. 6. Better is a dinner of herbs with quietness, and the enjoyment of one's self and a friend, than this banquet of wine with all the noise and tumult that must needs attend it.

III. Of the good order which in some respects was kept there notwithstanding. We do not find this like Belshazzar's feast, in which dunghill-gods were praised and the vessels of the sanctuary profaned, Dan. v. 3, 4. Yet the Chaldee paraphrase says that the vessels of the sanctuary were used in this feast, to the great grief of the pious Jews. It was not like Herod's feast, which reserved a prophet's head for the last dish. Two things which are laudable we may gather from the account here given of this feast:— 1. That there was no forcing of healths, nor urging of them: The drinking was according to the law, probably some law lately made; none did compel, no, not by continual proposing of it (as Josephus explains it); they did not send the glass about, but every man drank as he pleased (v. 8), so that if there were any that drank to excess it was their own fault, a fault which few would commit when the king's order put an honour upon sobriety. This caution of a heathen prince, even when he would show his generosity, may shame many who are called Christians, who think they do not sufficiently show their good housekeeping, nor bid their friends welcome, unless they make them drunk, and, under pretence of sending the health round, send the sin round, and death with it. There is a woe to those that do so; let them read it and tremble, Hab. ii. 15, 16. It is robbing men of their reason, their richest jewel, and making them fools, the greatest wrong that can be. 2. That there was no mixed dancing; for the gentlemen and ladies were entertained asunder, not as in the feast of Belshazzar, whose wives and concubines drank with him (Dan. v. 2), or that of Herod, whose daughter danced before him. Vashti feasted the women in her own apartment; not openly in the court of the garden, but in the royal house, v. 9. Thus, while the king showed the honour of his majesty, she and her ladies showed the honour of their modesty, which is truly the majesty of the fair sex.

Vashti's Refusal to Appear; Vashti Divorced. (b. c. 519.)

10 On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and Abagtha, Zethar, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains that served in the presence of Ahasuerus the king, 11 To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, to show the people and the princes her beauty: for she was fair to look on. 12 But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king's commandment by his chamberlains: therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him. 13 Then the king said to the wise men, which knew the times, (for so was the king's manner toward all that knew law and judgment: 14 And the next unto him was Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of Persia and Media, which saw the king's face, and which sat the first in the kingdom;) 15 What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law, because she hath not performed the commandment of the king Ahasuerus by the chamberlains? 16 And Memucan answered before the king and the princes, Vashti the queen hath not done wrong to the king only, but also to all the princes, and to all the people that are in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus. 17 For this deed of the queen shall come abroad unto all women, so that they shall despise their husbands in their eyes, when it shall be reported, The king Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she came not. 18 Likewise shall the ladies of Persia and Media say this day unto all the king's princes, which have heard of the deed of the queen. Thus shall there arise too much contempt and wrath. 19 If it please the king, let there go a royal commandment from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes, that it be not altered, That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she. 20 And when the king's decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his empire, (for it is great,) all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small. 21 And the saying pleased the king and the princes; and the king did according to the word of Memucan: 22 For he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that it should be published according to the language of every people.

We have here a damp to all the mirth of Ahasuerus's feast; it ended in heaviness, not as Job's children's feast by a wind from the wilderness, not as Belshazzar's by a hand-writing on the wall, but by his own folly. An unhappy falling out there was, at the end of the feast, between the king and queen, which broke off the feast abruptly, and sent the guests away silent and ashamed.

I. It was certainly the king's weakness to send for Vashti into his presence when he was drunk, and in company with abundance of gentlemen, many of whom, it is likely, were in the same condition. When his heart was merry with wine nothing would serve him but Vashti must come, well dressed as she was, with the crown on her head, that the princes and people might see what a handsome woman she was, v. 10, 11. Hereby, 1. He dishonoured himself as a husband, who ought to protect, but by no means expose, the modesty of his wife, who ought to be to her a covering of the eyes (Gen. xx. 16), not to uncover them. 2. He diminished himself as a king, in commanding that from his wife which she might refuse, much to the honour of her virtue. It was against the custom of the Persians for the women to appear in public, and he put a great hardship upon her when he did not court, but command her to do so uncouth a thing, and make her a show. If he had not been put out of the possession of himself by drinking to excess, he would not have done such a thing, but would have been angry at any one that should have mentioned it. When the wine is in the wit is out, and men's reason departs from them.

II. However, perhaps it was not her wisdom to deny him. She refused to come (v. 12); though he sent his command by seven honourable messengers, and publicly, and Josephus says sent again and again, yet she persisted in her denial. Had she come, while it was evident that she did it in pure obedience, it would have been no reflection upon her modesty, nor a bad example. The thing was not in itself sinful, and therefore to obey would have been more her honour than to be so precise. Perhaps she refused in a haughty manner, and then it was certainly evil; she scorned to come at the king's commandment. What a mortification was this to him! While he was showing the glory of his kingdom he showed the reproach of his family, that he had a wife that would do as she pleased. Strifes between yoke-fellows are bad enough at any time, but before company they are very scandalous, and occasion blushing and uneasiness.

III. The king thereupon grew outrageous. He that had rule over 127 provinces had no rule over his own spirit, but his anger burned in him, v. 12. He would have consulted his own comfort and credit more if he had stifled his resentment, had passed by the affront his wife gave him, and turned it off with a jest.

IV. Though he was very angry, he would not do any thing in this matter till he advised with his privy-counsellors; as he had seven chamberlains to execute his orders, who are named (v. 10), so he had seven counsellors to direct his orders. The greater power a man has the greater need he has of advice, that he may not abuse his power. Of these counsellors it is said that they were learned men, for they knew law and judgment,that they were wise men, for they knew the times,and that the king put great confidence in them and honour upon them, for they saw the king's face and sat first in the kingdom, v. 13, 14. In the multitude of such counsellors there is safety. Now here is,

1. The question proposed to this cabinet-council (v. 15): What shall we do to the queen Vashti according to the law? Observe, (1.) Though it was the queen that was guilty, the law must have its course. (2.) Though the king was very angry, yet he would do nothing but what he was advised was according to law.

2. The proposal which Memucan made, that Vashti should be divorced for her disobedience. Some suggest that he gave this severe advice, and the rest agreed to it, because they knew it would please the king, would gratify both his passion now and his appetite afterwards. But Josephus says that, on the contrary, he had a strong affection for Vashti, and would not have put her away for this offence if he could legally have passed it by; and then we must suppose Memucan, in his advice, to have had a sincere regard to justice and the public good. (1.) He shows what would be the bad consequences of the queen's disobedience to her husband, if it were passed by and not animadverted upon, that it would embolden other wives both to disobey their husbands and to domineer over them. Had this unhappy falling out between the king and his wife, wherein she was conqueror, been private, the error would have remained with themselves and the quarrel might have been settled privately between themselves; but it happening to be public, and perhaps the ladies that were now feasting with the queen having shown themselves pleased with her refusal, her bad example would be likely to have a bad influence upon all the families of the kingdom. If the queen must have her humour, and the king must submit to it (since the houses of private persons commonly take their measures from the courts of princes), the wives would be haughty and imperious and would scorn to obey their husbands, and the poor despised husbands might fret at it, but could not help themselves; for the contentions of a wife are a continual dropping, Prov. xix. 13; xxvii. 15; and see Prov. xxi. 9; xxv. 24. When wives despise their husbands, whom they ought to reverence (Eph. v. 33), and contend for dominion over those to whom they ought to be in subjection (1 Pet. iii. 1), there cannot but be continual guilt and grief, confusion and every evil work. And great ones must take heed of setting copies of this kind, v. 16-18. (2.) He shows what would be the good consequence of a decree against Vashti that she should be divorced. We may suppose that before they proceeded to this extremity they sent to Vashti to know if she would yet submit, cry Peccavi—I have done wrong, and ask the king's pardon, and that, if she had done so, the mischief of her example would have been effectually prevented, and process would have been stayed; but it is likely she continued obstinate, and insisted upon it as her prerogative to do as she pleased, whether it pleased the king or no, and therefore they gave this judgment against her, that she come no more before the king, and this judgment so ratified as never to be reversed, v. 19. The consequence of this, it was hoped, would be that the wives would give to their husbands honour, even the wives of the great, notwithstanding their own greatness, and the wives of the small, notwithstanding the husband's meanness (v. 20); and thus every man would bear rule in his own house, as he ought to do, and, the wives being subject, the children and servants would be so too. It is the interest of states and kingdoms to provide that good order be kept in private families.

3. The edict that passed according to this proposal, signifying that the queen was divorced for contumacy, according to the law, and that, if other wives were in like manner undutiful to their husbands, they must expect to be in like manner disgraced (v. 21, 22): were they better than the queen? Whether it was the passion or the policy of the king that was served by this edict, God's providence served its own purpose by it, which was to make way for Esther to the crown.

CHAP. I. Verſe 1. Now it came to paſſe in the dayes of Ahaſhuerus]

THis Book is in the Hebrew called Eſther: becauſe ſhe is a chief party therein mentioned and memorized. The Rabbines call it Megillath Eſther, that is, the volume of Eſther; and further tell us that there be five ſuch volume of Scripture-books; viz. Solomons Song, Ruth, Lamentations, Eccleſiaſtes, and this of Eſther: which they uſe to read all over in their Synagogues, at five ſeveral times of the year. 1. Solomons Song, at the Paſſeover; in remembrance of their once-deliverance out of Egypt, and their future ſalvation by the Meſſiah. 2. Ruth at Pentecoſt; becauſe therein is ſet down the Genealogy of David their firſt King. 3. The Lamentations of Jeremy on the ninth day of the fifth moneth (that is, of July;) in regard of the Babyloniſh captivity, and ruine of the Temple. 4. Eccleſiaſtes, at the feaſt of Tabernacles; in a thankful remembrance of the Divine Providence aſſerted in that Book; and exerciſed over them in a ſpecial manner, when they wandred in the wilderneſſe. 5. Laſtly, this of Eſther, on the fourteenth and fifteenth dayes of the moneth Adar or February: and as oft as they hear mention of Haman, they do, even to this day, R. Abraham Hiſpanus tognom. [non-Latin text not transcribed]. with their fiſts and hammers beat upon the benches and boards, as if they did beat upon Hamans head. They tell us that this Book was written by Mordecai himſelf, and eye-witneſſe and a maine party, according to chap. 9.20. and have ever reckoned it among the Chetubin or Hagiographa, that is, the Books of holy Scripture. Indeed, becauſe they finde not the name of God or Lord in this whole Book, they have a cuſtome to caſt it to the ground before they read it. But they need not: for as the Ancient Heathens uſed to write upon their books [non-Latin text not transcribed], God, God, ſo might the Jews upon this;Pauſan. there being no where in Scripture found more remarkable paſſages and acts of Gods immediate providence for his calamitous people, then in this. Surely (ſaith a great Divine) like as a man by a chaine made up of ſeveral linkes, ſome of Gold, others of Silver, ſome of Braſſe, Iron, or Tin, may be drawn out of a pit: ſo (it may here be ſeen that) the Lord by the concurrence of ſeveral ſubordinate things which have no manner of dependance or natural coincidence among themſelves, hath wonderfully wrought the deliverance of his Church; that it might appear to be the work of his own hand.

In the dayes of Ahaſhuerus] That is of Xerxes, the terrour of Greece, called Ahaſhueroſh, that is, an hereditary Prince, begotten by King Darius, and borne of a Kings daughter, viz. Atoſſa, daughter to Cyrus, and heir of the Kingdome by lineal deſcent. Such an hereditary Prince was our Henry the eighth.Vide Scalig. de Emond. temp. lib. 6. Herod. 1. 7. & 9. Fevardent. Ill loc. Greek Authors alſo call Xerxes, Oxyares, and his wife Ameſtris, which ſeemeth to be the ſame with Eſther, who is called Ameſtris by a like compoſition, ſaith an Interpreter, as Hamans father was called Ham-Adata, an honourable addition to a name among the Perſians.

This is Ahaſhuerus which reigned from India even unto Aethiopia] Viz. Incluſivè, ut loquuntur. This muſt needs be Xerxes; for he ſubdued Ethiopia, and thereupon made this great feaſt. He was Lord, we ſee, of a very great part of the habitable world; s is now the great Turk, not inferiour in greatneſſe and ſtrength, to the mightieſt Monarchs that ever yet were upon the face of the earth. No part of the world is left untouched by him but America onely;Turk. Hiſt. 132 not more fortunate, ſaith one, with her rich mines, then in that ſhe is ſo farre from ſo great and dangerous an enemy. Nevertheleſſe of all this greatneſſe (belluine rather then genuine) what ſaith Luther? Turcicum imperium quantum quantum eſt, &c. The Turkiſh Empire in its utmoſt extent, is but a cruſt caſt to his dogs, by the great houſe-keeper of the world. The inheritance he reſerves for his children: who though held here to ſtrait allowance, yet are far dearer to him then the worlds greateſt darlings; as the poor captive Jewes were, then this great Emperour. Thoſe that ſeek a myſterie in this hiſtory tell us, that Ahaſhueroſh typically repreſenteth God the Father ſoveraigning over all Kingdomes and creatures on earth; chuſing ſome to be heires of heaven, and purifying them for that purpoſe. Mardochai (ſignifying bitter, and contrite) ſetteth forth Chriſt, ſay they, broken for our ſinnes, and ſuffering the bitter wrath of God. Eſther (being the ſame with Alma, a pure Virgin, ſecreted and ſecured from defilement) is a lively image of the Church, unſpotted of the world, and provided for by her Mordecai. Eſay 7.14. The diſdainful Vaſhti (taking her name from Shatha, to drink) is a fit effigies of the world, proud and luxurious, and therefore excluded heaven. Haman (ſignifying a tumultuous and obſtreperous perſon) repreſents the Devil, reſtleſſe and rageful, but to his own utter ruine, &c. Theſe are pretty things, but not ſo proper. The Popiſh Commentatours are full of them.

Over an hundred and ſeven and twenty Provinces] Seven more then were in Darius the Mede his time, Dan. 6.1. Monarchs will be ſtill adding; and although a man were Monarch of the whole world; yea, had the command of Moone, and Stars, yet would he ſtill be peeping beyond them for more, more. Herodotus reckons up ſundry ſatrapies under the King of Perſia, out of which he received, yearly, fourteene thouſand five hundred and threeſcore Euboian talents: ſo that this Monarchy is fitely compared (in Daniel) to the ſilver breaſt and armes in Nebuchadnezzars image.

Verſe 2. When the King Ahaſhuerus ſate on the throne] Having peace with all men, being quiet and ſecure; though this laſted not long; for he was ſhamefully fo[illegible: 1 letter]led by the Grecians (againſt whom he led an Army of two millions of men) and forced to flie back againe over Helleſpont, in a poor fiſhers-boat; which being over-burdened, had ſunk all, if the Perſians by the caſting away themſelves had not ſaved the life of their King. Omnia ſunt hominum tenui pondentia file, &c.

Which was in Suſan the Palace] See Nehem. 1.1. Ptolomy, Strabe, and Pliny tell us, that in this City (ſcituate upon the river Choaſpes) was that famous Palace of Cyrus, which was adorned with marble walls,P[illegible: 1 letter]ol. l. 6 c. 3. Strab. lib. 15. Plin. l. 6. c. 27. Herod. l. 5. Athen. l. 12. c. 3 golden pillars, and great ſtore of precious ſtones; ſhining as ſo many ſtars from the roofe and ſides of it, to the dazling of the eyes of the beholders. Here it was, likely, that the Kings of Perſia ſate to hear cauſes under a vine of gold, ſet with ſmaragds; as with ſo many cluſters of grapes.

Verſe 3. In the third year of his reigne he made a feaſt] Such a feaſt, as that all other feaſts were but hunger to it; whether we regard the number of gueſts, the largeneſſe of preparation, or the continuance of time: Yet it had an end. But ſo hath not the feaſt of a good conſcience. Prov. 15.15. See the Note there.

Ʋnto all his Princes and his ſervants] To gratifie them for their former valour and victory; and to enflame them to a new expedition, viz. againſt Greece; for the conqueſt whereof he was now addreſſing himſelf: As alſo that his glory and wealth appearing herein might make them all the more willing to live in ſubjection to him, ſo royal and munificent a Prince.

The power of Perſia] Or to the army of Perſia and Media.

The Nobles] Satrapis, [non-Latin text not transcribed], of which the word Parthemim is made, as ſome think. Others derive it of Perath, quaſi principes Euphrataei, Kimchi Arias. the Princes that were beyond the river Euphrates.

Verſe 4. When he ſhewed the riches of his glorious Kingdome] Or, that he might ſhew, &c. There were other ends of this feaſt, as was before noted; but this is inſtanced by the Holy Ghoſt, to ſet forth the pride and vanity of this great monarch,O curas hominum! ò quantum eſt in rebus inanc! abuſing Gods gifts to his own ambition, and priding himſelf in that wealth which had been gotten by the hard labour of his poor ſubjects; from whom haply his Exactours had received no leſſe ſummes of curſes then of coyne.

And the honour of his excellent majeſty] Atqui virtute, non vanitate acquirenda eſt gloria, Cic de Orat. & de offic. ſaith the Oratour, glory is to be gotten by vertue, and not by theſe, like vanities. Hezekiah ſmarted for his folly in this kinde; Nebuchadnezzar much more. This great Potentate was ſhortly after brought low enough.

Deſinat elatis quiſquam confidere rebus;Claudian. Magna repentè ruunt, ſumma cadunt ſubitò.

Many dayes, even an hundred and fourſcore dayes] An hundred fourſcore and five dayes, ſaith Joſeph Ben Gorion. So long laſted the firſt feaſt: though Lyra will have it, that ſo long they were in preparing, but the feaſting was not till after theſe dayes expired; and that then both Prince and people were feaſted together ſeven dayes. Of the Sybarites indeed we read, that when they made great feaſts, they invited their women a twelve month before, that they might come the more richly and luxuriouſly attired, and might be the more ſumptuouſly entertained. But the text plainly ſhewes, that Lyra here did delirare, miſſe the meaning: for after that, the Princes, from ſundry parts had been half a year in feaſting.

Verſe 5. The King made a feaſt unto all the people] This was not amiſſe, ſo that care were taken that no irregulares gulares were found amongſt them; for Kings ſhould carry themſelves toward their people as kindly as parents do toward their children,Ariſt. 8. Eth. Plin. Panegyr. [non-Latin text not transcribed]. Pſal. 78.70. and ſhepherds toward their ſheep. Are they not therefore called patres patriae, Fathers of their Countrey, and Shepherds of their people? David and Cyrus were taken from the ſheepfolds to feed men.

Both unto great and ſmall] Pell-mell, one with another, to ſhew his liberality; which yet he might better have beſtowed in another way, then in belly-chear, and ſuch openhouſe-keeping to all comers without difference: ſith this is rather prodigality then bounty.

Seven dayes] Too long together to be a feaſting; ſith at ſuch times men are ſo apt to exceed and out-laſt; eating that on earth that they muſt digeſt in hell; and drowning both bodies and ſouls in wine and ſtrong drink, as Richard the third did his brother Clarence in a Butt of Malmſey.

In the court of the garden] In the banquetting-houſe. or ſub dio, in the open aire in the garden, where they had elbow-roome, and all manner of delights, fit to have beene ſeaſoned and allayed with the ſight of a ſepulcher (the Jewes built their Tombs a forehand in their gardens) or elſe of a deaths-head (as was the manner of the Egyptians at their great feaſts) to keep them from ſurfetting.

Verſe 6. Where were white, greene and blew hangings] Rich and royal tapeſtry, ſet forth with variety of colours, pleaſant to the eye.

Faſtened with cords of fine linnen] More precious then ſilk.

And pillars of marble] To bear up the hangings, that the gueſts might the better behold them, and be defended by them from winde, duſt, and heat.

The beds] Whereon they ſate at meat (which was the manner of all thoſe Eaſterne parts) their bodies ſo compoſed, as that the upper part thereof being ſomewhat bent and bowed, the reſt lay along.

Were of gold and ſilver] The bedſteds were. See Amos 6.4. & 2.8. Jer. 23.41.

Ʋpon a pavement of red and blue and white and black marble] Or, porphyry or cryſtal. Haec ſunt quae nos faciunt invitos mori. All very coſtly and ſtately: And theſe are thoſe things that make us deſirous to live longer here, as Charles the fifth told the Duke of Venice; who had ſhewed him his fair Palace richly furniſhed. But what ſaid Nugas the Scythian Prince to certaine Embaſſadours who brought him brave and rich preſents? Will theſe ſave a man from ſickneſſe? Will they ſtave off death? Do not theſe outward gawdes and gayeties carry away the heart from the love and care of better things?Val Max. Chriſtian. Solomon ſaith as much in his ſacred Retractations: and Charles the fifth (who beſides other Territories and Dominions, had twenty eight Kingdomes) voluntarily gave over the Empire as a burden; and curſing his honours in his old age,Mornay. his trophees, riches, royalties, ſaid to them all, Abite hinc, abite longè, Be gone all of you; get you hence. Abi perdita beſtia quae me perdidiſti, as Cornelius Agrippa ſaid on his death-bed,Delrio, Diſq. Mag. to. 3. l. 6. to his familiar Devil, Be packing thou wretched beaſt, that haſt undone me for ever.

Verſe 7. And they gave them drink] Think the ſame of meat alſo: but the whole feaſt hath its denomination in the original from drinking; becauſe at ſuch times they drank freely,Quia in conviviis largiter bibi ſolet. Corn. Nepos in vit. Alcibiad. Xenoph Cyrop. lib 8. Athenaeus. and many times more then did them good. The Perſians are infamous for their intemperancy, though they had Lawes to the contrary: and Xenophon tells us that of old they were otherwiſe. Onely once a year their King had licence to be drunk; viz. when they ſacrificed to the Sun.

In veſſels of gold] Beſet with precious ſtones (as Joſephus addeth) ad delectationem & ſpectaculum.

The veſſels being diverſe one from another] To ſhew the Kings ſtore of them, that there was not curta ſupellex, but great plenty and variety of diſhes and dainties.

And royal wine] Choice wine, and fit for a Kings palat. Vinum Cos, as they call it merrily at Lovain and Paris, id eſt, coloris, oderis, ſaporis optimi, of the beſt colour, ſmell and taſt.Beehive of Rome. Pref.

In abundance] They ſwam in wine, and the tables did even ſweat with variety of diſhes: quicquid avium volitabat, quicquid piſcium natabat, quicquid ferarum diſcurrebat, &c. to uſe Seneca's expreſſion.

According to the ſtate of the King] For whom it was not unlawful to feaſt, ſo to ſhew his liberality toward his Peeres, and courteſie to his people. But that which was blameworthy in him, was, 1. His vainglory. 2. His prodigality. 3. His miſ-ſpending of time. 4.Merlin. in loc. His neglect of buſineſſe. 5. His contempt of the true God, not once acknowledged by him or his gueſts. Laſtly, their profane mirth and jollity, without the leaſt note of ſanctity or reſpect to Gods glory.

Verſe 8. And the drinking was according to the Law] Preſcribed by the King, and it was but needful, leſt men ſhould make his houſe a ſchoole of intemperancy: and leſt ſhameful ſpewing ſhould be on his glory, Habac. 2.16. And, inaſmuch as of evil manners come good Lawes, it appeareth by this Edict of the King, that the Perſians were now degenerated from their ancient ſobriety and moderation in meats and drinks. So likewiſe were the Cretians when Minos made a Law that men ſhould not drink one to another, [non-Latin text not transcribed], unto drunkenneſſe: And the ſame we may well think of the inhabitants of this Land, when King Edgar made an ordinance for putting pins in cups, to ſtint men how farre they ſhould drink, and that none ſhould quaffe whole ones.

Quinetiam Spartae mos eſt laudabilis ille, Ʋt bibat arbitrio pocula quiſque ſuo.

None did compell] Domitius the father of Nero ſlew Liberius an honeſt Roman, becauſe he refuſed to drink ſo much as he commanded him.Sue[illegible: 1 letter]on. Tiberius for his drunkenneſſe called Caldius Biberius Mero, inſtead of Claudius Tiberius Nero) made Novellus Tricongius Proconſul, for that he could drink three pottles of wine together with one breath. He preferred alſo L. Piſo to the government of the City of Rome, becauſe he could ſit drinking with him continually for two whole dayes and nights together. Lyra upon this text declaimeth againſt this deteſtable healthing and carowſing too too common in all parts of Chriſtendome; and ſaith that it was brought up firſt by the Barbarians in Normandy, who came and depopulated that Countrey. And what a lamentable thing is it that at this day, in ſuch a State as ours, the civil, ſober, and temperate man ſhall be urged, and it may be forced to ſwallow down needleſſe draughts, as a horſe doth a drench, by domineering drunkards. The late good Act againſt drunkenneſſe, if well executed, will be ſome curb to our Roaring-boyes; ſo they will needs be called by a woful Prolepſis, Here for hereafter. Oh that we could perſwade ſuch, as Mahomet did his followers, that in every grape there dwelt a Devil; or, that fire and brimſtone, ſtorme and tempeſt, this ſhall be the portion of the Drunkards cup.

For the King had appointed to all the officers of his houſe] He had appointed, Heb. he had founded or ſtabliſhed it for an inviolable Decree; and officers on purpoſe (Controulers of his houſe) to ſee it executed. John 2.8. we read of a governour of the feaſt. The Jewes had ſuch Officers or Moderatours at their merry-meetings (called the Eyes and Overſeers of the feaſt,) that took care that none ſhould over drink himſelf. The Latines alſo had ſuch, Praeſecti morum. [non-Latin text not transcribed]. Gaudentius. Caſaubon. Plautut. calling them Dictatours. The Greeks had their Sympoſiarchs; but among theſe, their power extended no further then to ſee that the feaſters drank ſmall draughts onely at firſt, which by degrees they increaſed till they came to the height of intemperancy. But theſe ſhould have conſidered that which Anacharſis had told them, that the Vine beareth three grapes: The firſt, of pleaſure, the ſecond of drunkenneſſe,Laert. and the third of miſery and miſchief.

That they ſhould do according to every mans pleaſure] Drink what they thought good without ſtint, or force. It is reported of Romulus, that being once invited to ſupper, he drank not much, becauſe he had weighty buſineſſe to do on the morrow after. And when one ſaid unto him, Sir, If all men ſhould drink as you do, wine would be far cheaper: Nay, Nam ego bibi quantum volut. Gell. lib. 11. cap. 14. it would be dearer, ſaid he, if every man ſhould drink as I have done; that is, as much as he pleaſeth to drink.

Verſe 9. Alſo Vaſthi the Queene made a feaſt for the women] Heb. A feaſt, or a compotation of women. This was better yet, then Heliogabalus his Senat of women, with their ordinances correſpondent; as what attire each woman ſhould uſe, how they ſhould take place, when ſalute, &c. The Romans decreed in Senate that no women ſhould drink wine. What Vaſhti's practice was I know not; but, by her name ſhe ſhould be a Meribibula, a wine-bibber, as was noted, verſe 1.

Conveniunt rebus nomina ſaepè ſuis.

Joſephus, and after him Lyra, give her the commendation of a modeſt woman. 'Tis probable ſhe had the Kings conſent to feaſt the women, becauſe it was in the royal houſe: and it added much to the Kings munificence. But then ſhe ſhould have ſubdued her huſband by obeying of him, as Livia (as great an Empreſſe) did Auguſtus. Dio reporteth of her, that being asked how ſhe got ſuch a power over her husband? ſhe anſwered, Multa modeſtiâ, by my much modeſty. It is remarkable in this third feaſt, that, firſt,Dio in Tiberio. the women feaſted within doores, not in the open Court, as their husbands did, and next, apart from the men. Which whether it were of pride, becauſe Vaſhti would keep ſtate by her ſelf; or, of neceſſity, becauſe either the cuſtome of the Countrey, or the Kings jealouſie would not allow her preſence among ſo many of the other ſex, yet ſurely this may condemne (as one well ſaith) our moſt laſcivious mingling of both ſexes together in dancing, and ſuch like meetings; where nothing is more uſual then luſtful looks, filthy ſpeeches, uncleane touches. Apage omnem hanc impudentiam, ſhun all occaſions of ſinne that doth ſo eaſily beſet us. Lot feaſting and drinking wine with his own daughters, fell into the ſin of inceſt. The Iſraelites doing the like with the daughters of Moab, were enſnared, and ſubverted. The dancing damoſel ſo enflamed that old Goat Herod, that like a mad man he ſweareth to give her her deſire to the halfe of his Kingdome. In all mixt meetings of both ſexes, let the husbands eyes be eyes of Adamant, which will turne only to one point; leſt ſome Circe enchant him, having faculty attractive with the Jeat, and retentive with the Adamant. Let the wives alſo be like that Perſian Lady, who being at the marriage of Cyrus, and asked how ſhe liked the Bridegroome? How? ſaith ſhe: I know not; I ſaw no body but my husband.

Verſe 10. On the ſeventh day] Here we have Luxurioſi convivii luctuoſum exitum, a ſad end of a luxurious feaſt. Sin uſually endeth tragically. On the ſix former dayes of the feaſt having farced his body with good chear like a wool-ſack, and inflamed it with wine wherein was exceſſe, he bethinks himſelf of other pleaſures: Vina parant animos Veneri. Ariſtophanes calleth wine the milk of Venus, and fuell of luſt. Ovid. [non-Latin text not transcribed]. Ariſt. Lib. 1. de poenit. c. 4. Ambroſe ſaith that luſt is fed with feaſts, nouriſhed with delicacies, kindled with wine, ſet on flame with drunkenneſſe. A belly filled with wine foameth out filthineſſe, ſaith Hierom.

When the heart of the King was merry with wine] The property whereof is to exhilarate the heart of man, as the Scripture ſpeaketh. Pluto calleth wine the mitigater of mans miſery. Euripides ſaith, Qui non hilareſcit bibendo, nihil ſapit. Judg. 9.13. Pſal. 104.15. In Cyclope. But Ahaſuerus his heart was over-merry; the wine was ſo in that the wit was out: drunkenneſſe had bereft this Polyphemus of his eye of right reaſon. This is a vice hateful in all, but in a Ruler moſt of all. See Prov. 31.4. with the Note. What mad work made Alexander the Great many times in his drunkenneſſe, killing thoſe then whom he would afterwards have revived, if he could,Plato. [illegible: 1 letter] with his own heart-blood? Therefore it was that the Carthaginians forbade their Magiſtrates all uſe of wine: Solon puniſhed drunkenneſſe in a Ruler with death. And Ferdinand the firſt Emperour of Germany, ſharply reproved the Embaſſadours of the Electours and Princes ſent to an Imperial Diet, for their quaffing and careleſſe performance of their truſt, Vol. Max. Chriſt. 397. ſaying, Abſtinete à maledictâ ebrietate, &c. Abſtaine, for ſhame, from this curſed drunkenneſſe, (which is neither good for body nor ſoul) and look better to your offices.

He commanded Mehuman] Theſe ſhould have adviſed him better (for now drunkenneſſe had robbed him of himſelf, and laid a fool in his roome, wine had over-ſhadowed his wiſdome,Vino ſapientia obumbratur. lib. 23. cap. 1. Lib. 11. Antiq. cap. 6. as Pliny phraſeth it) and not have been ſo ready to execute his unreaſonable and illegal commands. For the Perſians had a Law (Joſephus ſaith) that Matrons ſhould not be ſeen at feaſts among men; though Harlots might. But Kings are never without their Court-Paraſites, who will humour them in any thing, and whoſe ſong is, Mihi placet quicquid Regi placet, That which pleaſeth the King, pleaſeth me, howſoever.

Verſe 11. To bring Vaſthi the Queen before the King] This was their errand, and they went readily about it, (though it beſeemed not their ſtate, as being chief about the King) whether they envyed the Queen, and ſo ſought occaſion againſt her (as the Biſhops did againſt Queen Katharine Parr) or were in the Kings predicament, and therefore deſired fuel to their fire.

With the crown royal] In all her beſt, that neſt of pride, as one calleth it, and incentive of luſt.

To ſhew the Princes and the people her beauty] And thereby to ſhew them all his own imprudence, and impudence: this he would not have done, if ſober, for any good.Herodot. Juſtin. Quid non ebriet as deſignat? Wine is a mocker, and ſtrong drink is raging. Could he not conſider what he had oft read befel Candaules King of the Sardians for ſhewing his fair wife to Gyges in a vain-glorious humour? Knew he not that thoſe wellwhittled Courtiers would eaſily be enflamed with the ſight of ſuch a peerleſſe beauty, and that her gay attire would not make her more comely, then common?

For ſhe was fair to look on] Xenophon teſtifieth of the Perſian and Median women, that they are proper and beautiful beyond all other Nations. Vaſthi, we muſt needs think then, [non-Latin text not transcribed]. Aelian. was a choyce beauty: and if ſhe were (as Aſpaſia Mileſia wife to King Cyrus) fair and wiſe, it was no ſmall commendation. But if (as Aurelia Oreſtilla in Salluſt) ſhe had nothing in her praiſeworthy but her beauty; it was ill beſtowed on her. The Jews give a very ill character of her. They ſay ſhe was daughter to Belſhazzar (that notable quaffer, who might therefore call her Vaſthi, that is, a drinker) that ſhe hated the Jews extremely, and abuſed divers of their daughters (her ſlaves) making them work on the Sabbath day, and putting them every day to the baſeſt offices, not affording them rags to hide their nakedneſſe, &c. This perhap[illegible: 1 letter] is but a Jewiſh fable.

Verſe 12. But the Queen Vaſhti refuſed to come at the Kings commandment] She peremptorily and contumaciouſly refuſed, though ſent for again and again (as Joſephus hath it) by her Lord and husband, who had in his cups boaſted of his wives beauty, courteſie and obedience, [non-Latin text not transcribed]. Septuag. whereof he would now make proof to the company, ſending for her by ſuch an honourable convoy: yet, ſhe would not, that ſhe would not, as the Hebrew word ſignifieth, but carried her ſelf, as if ſhe had been his Miſtreſſe, and not his wife, to his great grief, and the marring of all their mirth. What if the King were not ſo well adviſed? what if he were in his cups? what though ſhe had the Law on her ſide, and a pretence of modeſty, and leſt ſhe could by coming, occaſion the Kings jealouſie, &c? Yet Vaſhti was to have ſubmitted her ſelf unto her own husband (ſuch an husband eſpecially) as it was fit in the Lord, Col. 3.18. to yeeld obedience to all his lawful commands and reſtraints, ſeeme they never ſo unreaſonable. If woman were given to man for a comforter, and in ſome caſes for a Counſellor, yet in no caſe for a Controuler, as they are apt to be that are fair (faſtus ineſt formae) rich (argentum accepi, dote imperium vendidi, ſaith he in Plantus) better deſcended, &c. ſi vis nubere, nube pari: an inſolent wife is an unſufferable evil: and he hath loſt half the comfort of his life, who is married to ſuch an one.

Therefore was the King very wroth] He even foamed at mouth like a wild-bore, and froathed as the raging Sea, as the word importeth. The Perſian Kings were noted by ſome for uxorious; ſuch, as though they commanded the whole world,Captivarum ſuarum captivi. Plut. yet were commanded by their wives and concubines: But here it proved otherwiſe. This mighty Monarch could not bear ſuch a publike affront and ſcorne as he conſtrued it; but rageth beyond reaſon (whereof his wine for the time had bereft him) and reſolveth upon revenge. How much better our William the Conquerour, who though he knew that Maud his wife maintained her ſonne Robert Curtuoiſe in his quarrel for Normandy, and out of her own coffers paid the charge of that warre againſt his father, and her own husband, yet becauſe it proceeded but from a motherly indulgence for advancing her ſonne,Speed. 452.[illegible: 1 letter] he took for a cauſe rather of diſpleaſure then of hatred. He loved her whileſt alive, often lamented her death with tears, and moſt honourably interred her.

And his anger burned in him] As Nebuchadnezzar alſo did upon a like occaſion, hotter then his ſeven times-heated oven, or then the mountaine Aetna doth: Moſes his anger waxed hot in him, Exodus 32.19. ſo that he knew not well what he did in it; it raiſed ſuch a ſmoke. Jonah was ready to burſt with anger, Chapter 4.9. his blood boyled at his heart, as brimſtone doth at the match: therefore is the heart ſet ſo near the lungs, that when it is heated with anger, it may be allayed and cooled by the blaſt and moiſture thereof. Joſephus ſaith that he brake off the feaſt upon this occaſion.

Verſe 13. Then the King ſaid to the wiſe-men] What a ſudden change is here? Ex conviviis fiunt comitia, imò & convitia, ſaith an Interpreter: The enraged King forgets all his old love to Vaſthi, and breaths nothing elſe but reparation of his own loſt honour, and revenge upon his peereleſſe paragon. Howbeit herein He is to be commended, that he ſent not for her forthwith by force, that he might diſpatch her with his own hands; as Alexander did his friend Clitus and others in his cups and choler: neither ran he raging into her chamber,Sueton. Ner. and kickt her out of the world, as Nero did his wife Octavia, for a leſſe matter. He knew that anger is an evil counſellour: — qui non moderabitur irae,Horat. Inf[illegible: 1 letter]ctum velit eſſe dolor quod ſuaſerit & mens.

He that reineth not in his anger ſhall do that in his haſte, whereof it ſhall repent him by leiſure, and could eate his nailes to have it undone again. Ahaſhuerus therefore calleth for his Judges and Counſellours, skilful in ſtatematters.

Which knew the times] And what was beſt to be done in them. This skill they had gotten by much reading of Politicks, and Hiſtories, and long obſervation. The men of Iſſachar were ſuch, 1 Chronicles 12.32. Such a one was Croeſus to Cyrus, Polybius to Scipio, Agrippa to Auguſtus, Anaxagoras to Themiſtocles, &c. Xerxes here had ſeven ſuch to adviſe with as his Privy-Counſellours, Judices Regios; the Kings Judges Herodotus calleth them, and further ſaith,Lib. 3. that they held their places for their lives, unleſſe they very much misbehaved themſelves.

For ſo was the manner] Sc. to adviſe with them in matters of moment, but not alwayes to take their adviſe. The manner was, and the fundamental Lawes of the Land took order, for prevention of tyranny, that the Kings of Perſia ſhould be ruled by this grave Senate of the Kingdome, and not bring in an arbitrary government. But Xerxes, (who is this Ahaſhuerus) once at leſt, (if not oftner) viz. in his expedition againſt Greece, which was not long after this great feaſt, called his ſeven Princes together, and ſpake to them after this manner: Leſt, ſaid he, I ſhould ſeeme to follow mine owne counſel,Val. Max, lib! 9. cap. 5.[illegible: 1 letter] I have aſſembled you and now do you remember, that it becomes you rather to obey then adviſe.

Towards all that knew law and judgement] Of theſe Perſian Privy-Counſellours it is ſaid, 1. That they were wiſe-men: now thoſe only are wiſe quibus res ſapiunt prout ſunt. 2. They were skilful in the times, that is, well verſed in hiſtories, and well furniſhed with experiences. 3. That they knew the Lawes, which they had ready, and at their fingers ends, as we ſay. They knew alſo judgement, that is, equity and moderation, without which utmoſt right might be utmoſt wrong; as indeed it proved in the caſe in hand. Memucan not only accuſeth the Queen, but aggravateth her offence, and inſtead of healing the wound, maketh it farre wider. This might become a mercenary Oratour, but not a grave Counſellour. The buſineſſe was this: The King was angry, and he meant to ſet him going: the Queene was an eye-ſore, and ſhe muſt be removed. Such ſlaves are ambitious ſtatiſts to their own, and their Princes luſts, but eſpecially when their own plough is driven forward withal.

Verſe 14. And the next unto him was Carſhena, &c.] Theſe were his truſty and welbeloved Couſins, and Counſèllours, primi & proximi, firſt in the Kingdome, and next unto the King, without whom he was to have done no buſineſſe of importance. But it is recorded in ſtory that they had no freedome nor liberty of Councel. For every one of them had a plate or tile of gold to ſtand upon in the Councel-houſe: And if he gave counſel that the King thought well of, the plate of gold was given him for a reward: but if he delivered any thing contrary to the Kings minde, flagris caedebatur, he was beaten with ſtripes. Keckerm. Polit. Lo this was the manner of the Perſian Monarchs.

The ſeven Princes] See Ezra 7.14.

Which ſaw the Kings face] That came at pleaſure into the preſence, as they call it. It was a piece of the ſilly glory of theſe Kings of Perſia to ſecret themſelves from their ſubjects. No man might ſee the King (uncalled for) on paine of death, cùm ejus perſona ſub ſpecie majeſtatis occuleretur, Lib. 1. hiſt. ſaith Juſtin. Only theſe ſeven might ordinarily take the boldneſſe to ſee his face: which leſt Haman ſhould do, they covered his face.

And which ſate the firſt in the Kingdome] Xenophon telleth us that Cyrus the firſt Perſian Monarch ordained that the Nobles ſhould ſit before the King every man according to his degree,Cyrop. lib. 8. and dignity. Aben Ezra upon this text ſaith the ſame.

Verſe 15. What ſhall we do] Saith the King; who changeth the ſcene ſuddenly, the banquetting-houſe into a Councel-chamber, the merry-meeting into a moſt difficult conſultation, what to do with the Queene, and how to repair the Kings honour ſo much impaired by her.Eſay 23.9. How eaſily can the Lord ſtaine the pride of all glory, croſſe the worlds greateſt darlings, give an unſavoury verdure to their ſweeteſt morſels, and make their very felicity miſerable!

Ʋnto the Queene Vaſhti] You ſhould determine nothing raſhly againſt her, but accept of her lawful excuſe, hear her plea, remember that ſhe is your companion, and the wife of your Covenant, [non-Latin text not transcribed]. A then. lib. 13. Mal. 2.14. your fellow, and not your footſtoole; a yoke-fellow ſtanding on even ground with you, though drawing on the left ſide, &c. This you ſhould do to the Queene Vaſhti. But Plutarch noteth of the Perſians, that they were none of the kindeſt husbands, but harſh, and jealous. And Athenaeus ſaith, that the Kings of Perſia lord it over their wives, as if they were their handmaids.

According to Law] This you ſhould do; retaine the decency and gravity of the Law which is never angry with any man (Lex non iraſcitur, ſed conſtituit, ſaith Seneca) no more muſt thoſe that adminiſter it. The angry man cannot eaſily keep a meane. This Archytas the Tarentine knew, and therefore being diſpleaſed with his ſervants for their ſloth, he flang from them, ſaying, Farewell, I have nothing to ſay to you, becauſe I am angry at you.

Becauſe ſhe hath not performed the Commandment, &c.] This was a fault no doubt: but not ſo hainous as was made of it. The faults of his wife a man muſt either tollere or tolerare, cure or cover, and not go about to kill a fly upon her forehead with a beetle, as they ſay. But God had a provident hand in it for the good of his Church.

Verſe 16. And Memucan anſwered before the King] Heb. Mumchan, The Junior likely, and therefore ſpake firſt the reſt concurred, verſe 21. A bold man he was ſurely (whatever elſe he was) that durſt deliver his minde ſo freely of ſuch a buſineſſe, and in ſuch a preſence, &c. What if the King and Queen ſhould have grown friends again, where had Memucan been? If his cauſe and his conſcience had been as good as his courage was great, all had been as it ought to be.

And the Princes] Inter pocula de rebus arduis conſultabant, ſaith Herodotus concerning the Perſian Princes.Lib. 1. In the middeſt of their cups they uſe to conſult of the greateſt affairs. Here they accuſe and uncondemne the Queen heard, and unconvicted, which was againſt all Law divine and humane. King Henry the eighth, though a boyſterous man, dealt more civily with his firſt wife Katharine of Spaine, when he had a minde to rid his hands of her; Her cauſe was heard before the two Cardinals, Wolſey and Campaine, ere the Divorce was pronounced, and ſhe ſent out of the Kingdome.

Vaſthi the Queen hath not done wrong to the King only] That ſhe had done wrong or dealt perverſely againſt the King. He taketh for granted: becauſe the Kings commandment was not obeyed. But was that a ſufficient reaſon? Was the Kings bare word a Law, or rule of right? and is not a wife in caſe of ſin commanded by her husband, rather to obey God then men? Or ſay ſhe had done wrong, muſt it needs be out of perverſeneſſe? might it not be out of fear, modeſty, or for ſome other civil reaſon which ſhe might alledge for her ſelf, if called to her tryal? But here you may ſee (ſaith one) when flattery and malice gives information, ſhadows are made ſubſtances, and improbabilities neceſſities; ſo deceitful is flattery, malice ſo unreaſonable. And yet herein alſo the Lord is exceeding righteous, who meets hereby with other ſins of this inſolent Queen: that whereas (no doubt) ſhe was an example of pride and vanity more generally to other women then ſhe was likely to be in this point, therefore is ſhe hereby found out in her ſin, and by this unlikely accuſation, condemned of a true fault.

But alſo to all the Princes and to all the people] Againſt the King ſhe had offended by her diſobedience, againſt all others by her example. And indeed the ſins of great ones fly far upon thoſe two wing, Scandal and Example; they prove both patterns and privileges to their inferiours, for the like. Howbeit we muſt neceſſarily diſtinguiſh between ſcandal given, and ſcandal taken only: neither may we judge of a thing by the ill conſequences that biaſſed and diſaffected perſons can draw from it; there being nothing ſo well carried, but that it may be liable to ſome mens exceptions.

Verſe 17. For this deed of the Queen ſhall come abroad] The leaſt aberration in a ſtar is ſoon obſerved: ſo the miſcarriages of great ones are quickly both noted and noticed. Publike perſons are by Plutarch compared to looking-glaſſes, according to which others dreſſe themſelves: to pictures in a glaſſe-window, wherein every blemiſh is ſoon ſeen: to common Wells, which if they be poyſoned, many are deſtroyed. The common people commonly are like a flock of Cranes: as the firſt flies, all follow.

So that they ſhall deſpiſe their husbands] Which indeed ought not to be, no not in their hearts. Let the wife ſee that ſhe reverence her husband. Eph. 5. ult. God hath a barren womb for mocking Michal: when Sarah is crowned and chronicled for this, that ſhe obeyed her husband, calling him Lord. It is here taken for confeſſed, that Vaſthi deſpiſed her husband; and that others would thereby take heart to do the like, is therehence inferred. But doth that neceſſarily follow? and muſt the Queen therefore be preſently depoſed, yea put to death, as the Jew-Doctours tell us ſhe was? King Aſa depoſed his grandmother Maacha; but that was for Idolatry. Our Henry the eighth beheaded his wife Anne Bullen, but that was for (ſuppoſed, and but ſuppoſed) adultery. Queen Elizabeth narrowly eſcaped with her life, becauſe ſhe was accuſed (but falſely) of conſpiracy againſt the Queen her ſiſter. But what had Vaſthi done? Condemned ſhe is without reprival; and the Countrey muſt come in (but was never called) to give in evidence againſt her, that haply never ſaw her, nor heard of her offence. Is this fair-dealing?

Verſe 18. Likewiſe ſhall the Ladies of media and Perſia ſay] Say what? We will not do as our Lords command us. Like enough all this: for their tongues were their own, and their wills no leſſe. That free-will (about which there is ſo much ado made) when men once loſt, the women caught it up; and hence they are ſo wedded to their own will, ſaith one merrily. Quicquid volunt, valdè volunt, what they will do, they will do contra gentes, ſaith another. And for talking and telling their minds; The Rabbines have a proverb, that ten Kabs (meaſures) of ſpeech deſcended into the world, and the women took away nine of them. Theſe Ladies of Media and Perſia were feaſting with the Queen when the King ſent for her, ubi quid factum eſt? garritur, potitatur, ſaltitatur, Feverdent. in verſe 9. ſaith an Interpreter, at which time they were chatting, and bibbing, and dancing, and (when their mirth was marred) they would not ſpare to ſpeak their minds, and eaſe their ſtomachs, what ever came of it. We read in our own Chronicles of the Lady de Breuſe, that by her railing and intemperate tongue, ſhe had ſo exaſperated King John (whom ſhe reviled as a tyrant and a murtherer) that he would not be pacified by her ſtrange preſent (four hundred kine,Speed. 572. and one bull, all milk-white, except only the eares, which were red) ſent unto the Queen.

Then ſhall there ariſe too much contempt and wrath] Contempt on the wives part, and wrath on the husbands: wives ſhall ſlight their husbands, and they again ſhall fall foul upon their wives: ſo that conjugium ſhall become conjurgium; and the houſe they dwell together in, ſhall be no better then a fencing-ſchool, wherein the two ſexes ſeem to have met together for nothing but to play their prizes, and to try maſteries. This made Sylla ſay, I had been happy, if I had never been married.

Verſe 19. If it pleaſe the King] Courtier-like; leſt he ſhould ſeem to preſcribe to the King, or to prejudice the reſt of the royal Counſellours, he thus modeſtly prefaceth to his enſuing harſh and hard ſentence. He knew well enough it would pleaſe the King at preſent, in the minde he now was in: and to prevent any alteration, he moves to have it made ſure by an irrevocable Law, that he might not hereafter be cenſured for this his immoderate and unmerciful cenſure, but be ſure to ſave one howſoever.

Let it be written, ſaith he, among the Lawes of the Perſians] Which the King himſelf could not repeal, Dan. 6.8, 15. but, once paſſed and regiſtred, they remained binding for ever. I have read of a people among whom the Lawes they had laſted in force but for three dayes at utmoſt.Legem dicimus [non-Latin text not transcribed]. Plato. This was a fault in the other extreme. Lawes are to be made with due deliberation, and then to be eſtabliſhed, and not altered without very great reaſon, as ſometimes there is, ſith Tempora mutentur, nos & mutemur in illis.

That Vaſthi come no more before King Ahaſhuerus] But be abſolutely depoſed and divorced. Here was no proportion betwixt the offence and the ſentence. This judgement was like the Laws of Draco: of which Ariſtotle ſaith, that they were not worth remembrance, but only for their great ſeverity; as being written not with black, but with blood.

And let the King give her royal eſtate unto another The more to vex her. Surely ſuch an exauthoration of ſo great a perſonage, with ſo great diſgrace and ignominy, could not but be very grievous, yea worſe then death. High ſeats as they are never but uneaſie; ſo the fall from them muſt needs be dangerous and diſmal. How well might holy Eſther ſing with the Virgin Mary, God putteth down the mighty from their thrones, and exalteth them of Low degree, Luke 1.52.

Verſe 20. And when the Kings Decree that he ſhall make ſhall be publiſhed] But why ſhould any ſuch thing be publiſhed at all, unleſſe the King be ambitious of his own utter diſhonour? Is there none wiſer then other, but that the King muſt beray his own neſt, tell all the Empire that he was drunk or little better, and did in his drink determine that againſt his fair Queen, that he ſo ſoon after repented? He ſhould have done in this caſe as a man doth, that having a ſecret ſore, clappeth on a plaiſter, and then covereth it with his hand, that it may ſtick the faſter, work the better. Had Ahaſhueroſh been wiſe, the world had been never the wiſer for any thing that Vaſthi had done, &c. But Memucan hath ſome colour for his bad counſel, a goodly vail to caſt over it.

All the wives ſhall give to their husbands honour] They ſhall not dare to do otherwiſe, unleſſe they mean to be likewiſe divorced. But will terrour breed true honour? is ſoothing right ſubmiſſion? Quem metuunt oderunt, fear makes hatred; and people honour none (to ſpeak properly) but whom they love ſincerely. Thoſe lordly husbands that domineere over their wives as if they were their ſlaves, and carry themſelves like lions in their houſes, muſt not look for any great reſpect there. This man promiſed himſelf great matters when he thus ſaid, The wives ſhall give iittenu in the maſculine gender, to ſignifie the wives voluntary ſubjection and obedience: but that he never had; nor any other that took the like courſe. Thoſe husbands that will be honoured indeed by their wives, muſt give honour to them as to the weaker veſſels, as being heirs together of the grace of life, 1 Pet. 3.7.

Verſe 21. And the ſaying pleaſed the King] Pity but itching ears ſhould have clawing Counſellors. Memucan was a fit helve for ſuch an hatchet; and his adviſe fit lettice for ſuch lips. What marvel that ſuch a ſmooth Counſellour pleaſed the King, when as he had before given place to two ſuch bad Counſellours, Wine and Anger?

And the Princes] Who perceived (very likely) by the Kings looks and geſtures, that he was much taken and tickled with Memucans counſel: which they therefore ſecond and ſubſcribe to. How rare a jewel in a Princes care is a faithful counſellour, that will deliver himſelf freely, non ad gratiam, ſed ad veritatem; not to pleaſe, but to profit. Such a one was Agrippa to Auguſtus, Polybius to Scipio, Latimer to Edward the ſixth, &c. There is ſafety in the multitude of Counſellours, modò andeant quae ſentiant (as the Oratour ſaith) ſo they dare ſpeak out, and will not ſpare to do it.Cic. pro Milone

And the King did according to the word of Memucan] Dicto citiùs, it was forthwith done. Vaſthi is all on the ſudden divorced, and the fooliſh King publikely ſhamed. But all this was of the Lord, that Eſther might be advanced, and the Church relieved. So there was a wheele within a wheele, which the wicked diſcerne not, nor the Saints conſider of. God oft wraps himſelf in a cloud, and will not be ſeene till afterwards. All Gods dealings will appear beautiful in their ſeaſons; though for the preſent we ſee not the contiguity and concatenation of one thing with an[illegible: 2 letters]her.

Verſe 22. That every man ſhould beare rule in his own houſe] Aequum sanè edictum, modò moderatum, A righteous Decree, had it been but rightly made uſe of, and not abuſed to tyranny and rough-dealing. Ariſtotle ſaith, that the husband ought to have a civil power over his wife, as being her better in honour, ſpeech, gravity and dignity. Menander and Euripides ſay the ſame; holding it unfit that the hen ſhould crow, that the woman ſhould uſurp authority over the man: this, Nature and Scripture do both condemne. But why ſhould theſe Perſian Princes at this time ſend forth ſuch an Edict as this? was it becauſe this good Law of Nature began to be depraved and obliterated among them; as it was among the Egyptians, where the Queen is more honoured then the King, and in private houſes the wife then the husband, as Diodorus Siculus reporteth?Lib. 2. Bibl. c. 2. Or had they a minde to divulge their own ſhame, and to tell the world that they were leaſt maſters at home, and muſt therefore have a law made to force obedience? Or was it not (laſtly) to countenance the Kings raſh and unlawful putting away of his wife, for ſo light a cauſe: like as Cambyſes their late King having a minde to marry his own ſiſter, made a Law, that any man ſhould have liberty to do the like? Whatever it was that moved them to ſend forth this Decree, ſurely there was little need to excite men to uſe their authority over their wives; ſith they are apt enough to do ſo without bidding. Therefore Saint Paul after, wives ſubmit your ſelves unto your own husbands, doth not ſay,Col. 3.19. and ſubjoyne, husbands rule over your wivess, but husbands love your wives, and be not bitter againſt them.

And that it ſhould be publiſhed according to the language of every people] That ſo being particularly underſtood, it might appear more authentical and weighty; and ſo take away the hatred from the Law-givers for the wrong they had done the Queen. Some render it thus, that he ſhould ſpeak according to the language of his own people, that is, ſay they, that each man ſhould keep and obſerve the liberty of his own Nation, by commanding his people, and governing his own family, without any contradiction.