The Book of Esther narrates the events surrounding Queen Esther, who uses her influence to save her people, the Jews, from a decree of extermination issued by the king's advisor, Haman. After a series of dramatic events including feasts, royal decrees, and a heroic revelation of Haman's plot, the Jews defend themselves and celebrate their deliverance with the feast of Purim. The book emphasizes themes of identity, courage, and divine providence, while also exploring the political dynamics of the Persian Empire during the reign of King Ahasuerus, likely identified as Xerxes.

1. ESTHER 1 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
I TRODUCTIO
THE REV. R. SI KER, B.D.
I. Contents.—The Book of Esther opens with the account of the feast given by King
Ahasuerus at the end of the 180 days during which he had entertained the lords and
princes of the kingdom at his palace in the city of Shushan. On the seventh day of
the feast, the king, excited with wine, sends for his queen Vashti “to show the people
and the princes her beauty;” with which unseemly request Vashti naturally refuses
to comply. The enraged king takes counsel with his “wise men,” and by a decree
deposes Vashti from her place both as queen and wife, ordering that “all wives
should give to their husbands honour,” and that “every man should bear rule in his
own house.”
After this a number of maidens were selected, that from them Ahasuerus might
choose the one who pleased him best. His choice fell upon Esther, a Jewish orphan
girl, who had been brought up by her cousin Mordecai, at whose command she did
not at first disclose her nationality to the king. About this time Mordecai was the
means of frustrating an attempt made on the life of Ahasuerus; the plotters were
hanged, but the discoverer of the plot was for the time forgotten.
A certain Haman now occupied the chief place in the king’s favour, and Mordecai
incurred his bitter enmity by his refusal to pay him the reverence yielded by others.
ot content with the personal hatred, he sought the downfall of the whole Jewish
race, and obtained from the king a decree, by virtue of which all the Jews
throughout the empire were to be massacred. The terror such an edict would
produce among the Jews can well be imagined, and the news at length reaches
Esther in the palace, and she is bidden by her kinsman to use her influence with the
king to obtain a reversal of the decree. To her objection that to venture uncalled into
the king’s presence is punishable with death, it is answered that, if her race are to
perish, she must not think to purchase safety by a cowardly silence; “but,” adds
Mordecai, unwilling that his adopted child should lose so great an opportunity,
“who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” The
queen at last determines to make the effort, bidding her countrymen to join her in
observing a three days’ fast. The fast over, Esther, clad in her royal robes, but
standing in the court as a suppliant, appeared before the king, who held out to her
the golden sceptre in token that she had “obtained favour in his sight.” She is
bidden to proffer her request, but evidently temporising she merely asks that the
king and Haman should come that day to the banquet which she had prepared. The
repetition of the king’s promise only leads to a fresh invitation to a second banquet

2. on the following day, while Haman returns home proud at the honour done him, but
with fresh exasperation against Mordecai, who remained sitting as he passed.
At home Haman discloses his grievance to his wife and his friends, and by their
advice it is decided that a gallows of exceptional height should be made, and that on
the morrow the king’s leave should be got to hang Mordecai—far too unimportant a
matter to be worth gainsaying. That very night God’s providence interposes to save
His people in an unlooked-for way. The king, unable to sleep, commands the book of
the Chronicles of the kingdom to be read to him, and thus hears of the unrewarded
service which Mordecai had done him, by the discovery of the plot. Thus in the
morning he suddenly greets his minister with the question, “What shall be done
unto the man whom the king delighteth to honour?” The favourite, unable to see the
possibility of any one being intended save himself, suggests the bestowal of the most
extravagant honours. How the answer he received must have seemed the precursor
of the end, when he hears that it is for Mordecai that he has planned this triumph,
and is bidden, as himself the chief noble in the realm, to see that the whole is carried
into execution! The pageant is soon over; Mordecai returns to his station by the
king’s gate, and Haman to his home, to find how truly the dismal comments of his
wife and friends echoed his own sad forebodings. The morrow comes and the second
banquet; and Esther now feels that the need for temporising has passed, and prays
for the life of herself and her people, and directly charges Haman with his nefarious
scheme. Ahasuerus orders at once Haman’s execution, which is done without delay,
his property being given to the queen, and by her to Mordecai. But though the
author of the decree had fallen, the decree itself still held good. It had been written
in the king’s name, and sealed with the king’s seal, and no man might reverse it. In
this dilemma, largely due to his own folly, the king issues another mandate
empowering the Jews to stand on their defence, sparing no pains to spread this
throughout the whole empire, thereby showing clearly how completely a change had
taken place in the royal favour. The day of slaughter came, and not only did the
Jews show themselves able to defend themselves, but they took a terrible vengeance
on their enemies; five hundred men were slain by them in Shushan alone, including
the ten sons of Haman. At Esther’s further request, the king extended the time of
massacre in that city over the next day also; and in the provinces 75,000 of the Jews’
enemies perished. The two days following the great day of slaughter were made feast
days for ever after, under the name of Purim. The book ends with “the declaration
of the greatness of Mordecai,” who has now risen to be “next unto the king, and
great among the Jews.”
II. Date of the Events recorded.—This simply resolves itself into the question, who is
Ahasuerus? and there can be little doubt that we must identify him with the king
known to the Greeks as Xerxes, and that for the following reasons :—
(1) The name Xerxes is a Greek reproduction of the Persian name Khshayarsha
(meaning, according to Canon Rawlinson, “the ruling eye”), and when Ahasuerus is
transliterated more strictly according to the Hebrew spelling Äkhashverosh, it will
be seen that the essential elements of the word are almost exactly reproduced, the
letter aleph being prefixed to facilitate the difficult pronunciation.

3. (2) The character of Ahasuerus as shown in this book presents a striking parallel
with that of Xerxes. Ahasuerus is an ordinary specimen of an Eastern despot, who
knows no law save the gratification of his own passions, and of the passing caprice
of the moment. He sends for his queen in defiance of decency and courtesy, to grace
a revel, and deposes her for a refusal simply indicative of self-respect; he is willing
to order the destruction of a whole people throughout his empire, at the request of
the favourite of the time; when the tide of favour turns, the favourite is not only
disgraced, but he and all his family are ruthlessly destroyed, and Mordecai rises
from a humble position to be the new vizier. Thus, though God shapes all this for
good, the instrument is distinctly evil. How similar is the picture shown in the
undying story of Herodotus, of the king who, reckless of the overthrow of his
father’s armies at Marathon ten short years before, will make a fresh attempt to
crush the nation on whose success the freedom of the world was to hinge; who comes
with a host so vast that, in the poet’s hyperbole, they drink the rivers dry (Juv. x.
177); who has a throne erected to view the slaughter of Leonidas and his three
hundred; who gazes from mount Ægaleos at the vast fleet in the bay of Salamis,
soon to be routed and broken by Themistocles! The king, who a few weeks before
has the Hellespont scourged because it presumes to be stormy and break his bridges,
now flees away in panic, leaving his fleet to its fate. (See Herod. vii. 35; Æsch. Pers.
467, seq.; Juv. x. 174-187.)
(3) The extent of his empire. He rules “from India even unto Ethiopia” (Esther 1:1).
India was not included in the empire of the early Persian kings, and therefore,
though Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, is called Ahasuerus in Ezra 4:6, he is excluded
by the above consideration.
If then as we can hardly doubt, Ahasuerus and Xerxes are the same, we can at once
fix the date of the events recorded in the Book of Esther. Ahasuerus makes the great
feast in the third year of his reign (Esther 1:3), Esther is taken into the royal palace
in the seventh year (Esther 2:16), they cast lots before Haman in the twelfth year
(Esther 3:7), and in the thirteenth year the plan of destruction is broached. ow the
reign of Xerxes lasted from 485-464 B.C., therefore the events recorded in Esther
range from 483-470 B.C.
III. Author, and Date of Composition.—A number of guesses, for they cannot be
called anything more, have been put forward as to the author of this book, and of
the best of these we can only say that it is possible. Some, as Clement of Alexandria,
and Aben Ezra (Comm. in Esther, Int.), have assigned it to Mordecai; others, as
Augustine (de Civ. Dei. 1. :36), with much less show of probability, refer it to Ezra;
the Talmud (Tal. Babl., Baba Batlira, f. 15a) gives the “men of the great
synagogue;” and yet other theories are current.
In all this uncertainty we may as well at once confess our inability to settle who the
author was, though we may perhaps obtain a fair notion of the conditions under
which he wrote. It may probably be fairly inferred from such passages as Esther
9:32; Esther 10:2, &c, that the writer had access to the documents to which he

4. refers, so that the book must have been written in Persia. This is further confirmed
by traits that suggest that the writer is speaking as an eye-witness (see, for example,
Esther 1:6; Esther 8:10; Esther 8:14-15, &c). Possibly too, even if Mordecai were not
the author, matter directly derived from him may be seen in Esther 2:5; Esther 2:10,
&c.
Again, it must be noticed that the name of God in every form is entirely absent from
the book, that there is no allusion whatever to the Jewish nation as one exiled from
the land of their fathers, to that land itself, or to the newly rebuilt Temple, or, in
fact, to any Jewish institution whatsoever. Whether this reserve is to be explained by
the writer’s long residence in Persia having blunted the edge of his national feelings,
or whether he may have thought it safer to keep his feelings and opinions in the
background, it is impossible to say: very possibly both causes may have acted.
As regards the date, some of the foregoing considerations, if allowed, would weigh
strongly in favour of a comparatively early date, inasmuch as they would make the
writer more or less contemporaneous with the events he records—a view which the
graphic style strongly supports. But it is obvious, from the way in which the book
opens, that Ahasuerus or Xerxes was no longer king. Combining these two
considerations, we I should prefer to fix the composition of the book not long after
the death of Xerxes (464 B.C. ), say 450 B.C., a time when Athens was at the height
of its power and fame, and Rome was merely a second-rate Italian commonwealth.
The above view, or something like it, is held by most sober critics, a common form of
the view being to assign the book to the reign of the successor of Xerxes, Artaxerxes
Longimanus (464-425 B.C.), and it may be noted that there can be little doubt that
the Books of Ezra, ehemiah, and Chronicles are to be assigned to that reign, and
that the style of those books closely resembles that of Esther. Some have advocated a
distinctly late date for Esther, assigning it to the period of the Greek régime, but the
arguments brought forward seem to us of little weight.
IV. Canonicity, and Place in Canon.—In the Hebrew Bible, Esther stands as the last
of the five Megilloth, or rolls, the others being Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations,
and Ecclesiastes, and it is read through in the synagogues at the Feast of Purim.
Among the Jews there can be no doubt that its canonicity was universally
acknowledged, for in the earliest statement we have as to the contents of the Jewish
Canon (Josephus, contr. Apion. i. 8), Esther is distinctly included by the mention of
Artaxerxes. Here and there in early Christian lists of the books of the Old
Testament Canon in its Palestinian form, as opposed to the longer Canon of the
Alexandrian Jews, the Book of Esther is not mentioned. This is the case, for
example, in the list given by Melito, Bishop of Sardis in the second century (Euseb.
Hist. Eccl. iv. 26). Dr. Westcott (Smith’s Bible Dict., art. “Canon”) suggests that this
may be due to Esther having been viewed as a part of Ezra representing a general
collection of post-captivity records. Whatever may be the true explanation, at any
rate Esther is an integral part of the pure Hebrew Canon, and as such is mentioned
by the Talmud; it was included, though with considerable addition, to which we
refer below, in the Græco-Alexandrian Canon, and was received, while the Greek

5. accretions were rejected, by Jerome into his Latin translation.
The position of Esther in the Hebrew Bible is an artificial one, clearly due to
Liturgical reasons, the Meqilloth being read, each at one of the Feasts. In the LXX.
and Vulgate, as well as in the English Bible, Esther comes at the end of the historical
books: In the two former, Tobit and Judith intervene between ehemiah and
Esther; in the latter, those two books are relegated to the Apocrypha.
V. Apocryphal Additions to Esther.—In the text of Esther, as given by the LXX., we
find large interpolations interspersed throughout the book. The chief of them are
:—
(1) Mordecai’s lineage, dream, and reward, forming a prelude to the whole book
(Esther 12:6, English Version).
(2) A copy of the king’s letters to destroy the Jews, inserted in Esther 3 (Esther ,
English Version).
(3) Prayers of Mordecai and Esther, in Esther 4 (Esther 14:19, English Version).
(4) Amplification of Esther’s visit to the king, in Esther 5 (Esther 15, English
Version).
(5) Edict of revocation, in Esther 8 (Esther 16, English Version).
(6) An exposition of Mordecai’s dream; after which comes a statement, evidently
intended to imply that the whole book was translated from the Hebrew (Esther ,
11:1, English Version).
Thus in the LXX. the book with its additions makes a continuous narrative. But
when Jerome set forth his new Latin Version based on the Hebrew, he naturally
rejected those portions not found in the Hebrew, placing them at the end of the
book, noting the cause of the rejection and the place of the insertion.
In the English Bible, however, while the position of the extracts is as it is in the
Latin Vulgate, Jerome’s notes are omitted, making the whole almost unintelligible.
It is curious to note that Esther of the English Version forms the first verse in the
Greek of Esther, and Esther 11:1 the last verse.
EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY
THE BOOK OF ESTHER: I TRODUCTORY
THERE is a striking contrast between the high estimation in which the Book of
Esther is now cherished among the Jews and the slighting treatment that is often
meted out to it in the Christian Church. According to the great Maimonides, though

6. the Prophets and the Hagiographa will pass away when the Messiah comes, this one
book will share with The Law in the honour of being retained. It is known as "The
Roll" par excellence, and the Jews have a proverb, "The Prophets may fail, but not
The Roll." The peculiar importance attached to the book may be explained by its
use in the Feast of Purim-the festival which is supposed to commemorate the
deliverance of the Jews from the murderous designs of Haman, and their triumph
over their Gentile enemies-for it is then read through in the synagogue. On the other
hand, the grave doubts which were once felt by some of the Jews have been retained
and even strengthened in the Christian Church. Esther was omitted from the Canon
by some of the Oriental Fathers. Luther, with the daring freedom he always
manifested in pronouncing sentence on the books of the Bible, after referring to the
Second Book of Maccabees, says, "I am so hostile to this book and that of Esther,
that I wish they did not exist; they are too Judaising, and contain many heathenish
improprieties." In our own day two classes of objections have been raised.
The first is historical. By many the Book of Esther is regarded as a fantastic
romance, by some it is even relegated to the category of astronomical myths, and by
others it is considered to be a mystical allegory. Even the most sober criticism is
troubled at its contents. There can be no question that the Ahasuerus (Ahashverosh)
of Esther is the well-known Xerxes of history, the invader of Greece who is
described in the pages of Herodotus. But then, it is asked, what room have we for
the story of Esther in the life of that monarch? His wife was a cruel and
superstitious woman, named Amestris. We cannot identify her with Esther. because
she was the daughter of one of the Persian generals, and also because she was
married to Xerxes many years before the date of Esther’s appearance on the scene.
Two of her sons accompanied the expedition to Greece, which must have preceded
the introduction of Esther to the harem. Moreover, it was contrary to law for a
Persian sovereign to take a wife except from his own family, or from one of five
noble families. Can Amestris be identified with Vashti? If so, it is certain that she
must have been restored to favour, because Amestris held the queen’s place in the
later years of Xerxes, when the uxorious monarch came more and more under her
influence. Esther, it is clear, can only have been a secondary wife in the eyes of the
law, whatever position she may have held for a season in the court of the king. The
predecessors of Xerxes had several wives; our narrative makes it evident that
Ahasuerus followed the Oriental custom of keeping a large harem. To Esther, at
best, therefore, must be assigned the place of a favourite member of the seraglio.
Then it is difficult to think that Esther would not have been recognised as a Jewess
by Haman, since the nationality of Mordecai, whose relationship to her had not been
hidden, was known in the city of Susa. Moreover the appalling massacre of "their
enemies" by the Jews, carried on in cold blood, and expressly including "women
and children," has been regarded as highly improbable. Finally, the whole story is
so well knit together, its successive incidents arrange themselves so perfectly and
lead up to the conclusion with such neat precision, that it is not easy to assign it to
the normal course of events. We do not expect to meet with this sort of thing outside
the realm of fairy tales. Putting all these facts together, we must feel that there is
some force in the contention that the book is not strictly historical.

7. But there is another side to the question. This book is marvellously true to Persian
manners. It is redolent of the atmosphere of the court at Susa. Its accuracy in this
respect has been traced down to the most minute details. The character of
Ahasuerus is drawn to the life; point after point in it may be matched in the Xerxes
of Herodotus. The opening sentence of the book shows that it was written some time
after the date of the king in whose reign the story is set, because it describes him in
language only suited to a later period-"this is Ahasuerus which reigned from India
unto Ethiopia," etc. But the writer could not have been far removed from the
Persian period. The book bears evidence of having been written in the heart of
Persia, by a man who was intimately acquainted with the scenery he described.
There seems to be some reason for believing in the substantial accuracy of a
narrative that is so true to life in these respects.
The simplest way out of the dilemma is to suppose that the story of Esther stands
upon a historical basis of fact, and that it has been worked up into its present
literary form by a Jew of later days who was living in Persia, and who was perfectly
familiar with the records and traditions of the reign of Xerxes. It is only an
unwarrantable a priori theory that can be upset by our acceptance of this
conclusion. We have no right to demand that the Bible shall not contain anything
but what is strictly historical. The Book of Job has long been accepted as a sublime
poem, founded on fact perhaps, but owing its chief value to the divinely inspired
thoughts of its author. The Book of Jonah is regarded by many cautious and devout
readers as an allegory replete with important lessons concerning a very ugly aspect
of Jewish selfishness. These two works are not the less valuable because men are
coming to understand that their places in the library of the Hebrew Canon are not
among the strict records of history. And the Book of Esther need not be
dishonoured when some room is allowed for the play of the creative imagination of
its author. In these days of the theological novel we are scarcely in a position to
object to what may be thought to partake of the character of a romance, even if it is
found in the Bible. o one asks whether our Lord’s parable of the Prodigal Son was
a true story of some Galilean family. The Pilgrim’s Progress has its mission, though
it is not to be verified by any authentic Annals of Elstow. It is rather pleasing than
otherwise to see that the compilers of the Jewish Canon were not prevented by
Providence from including a little anticipation of that work of the imagination
which has blossomed so abundantly in the highest and best culture of our own day.
A much more serious objection is urged on religious and moral grounds. It is
indisputable that the book is not characterised by the pure and lofty spirit that gives
its stamp to most of the other contents of the Bible. The absence of the name of God
from its pages has been often commented on. The Jews long ago recognised this fact,
and they tried to discover the sacred name in acrostic form at one or two places
where the initial letters of a group of words were found to spell it. But quite apart
from all such fantastic trifling, it has been customary to argue that, though
unnamed, the presence of God is felt throughout the story in the wonderful
Providence that protects the Jews and frustrates the designs of their arch-enemy
Haman. The difficulty, however, is wider and deeper. There is no reference to

8. religion, it is said, even where it is most called for, no reference to prayer in the hour
of danger, when prayer should have been the first resource of a devout soul; in fact
no indication of devoutness of thought or conduct. Mordecai fasts; we are not told
that he prays. The whole narrative is immersed in a secular atmosphere. The
religious character of apocryphal additions that were inserted by later hands is a
tacit witness to a deficiency felt by pious Jews.
These charges have been met by the hypothesis that the author found it necessary to
disguise his religious beliefs in a work that was to come under the eyes of heathen
readers. Still we cannot imagine that an Isaiah or an Ezra would have treated this
subject in the style of our author. It must be admitted that we have a composition on
a lower plane than that of the prophetic and priestly histories of Israel. The theory
that all parts of the Bible are inspired with an equal measure of the Divine Spirit
halts at this point. But what was to prevent a composition analogous to secular
literature taking its place in the Hebrew Scriptures? Have we any evidence that the
obscure scribes who arranged the Canon were infallibly inspired to include Only
devotional works? It is plain that the Book of Esther was valued on national rather
than on religious grounds. The Feast of Purim was a social and national occasion of
rejoicing, not a solemn religious ceremony like the Passover, and this document
obtains its place of honour through its connection with the feast. The book, then,
stands to the Hebrew Psalms somewhat as Macaulay’s ballad of the Armada stands
to the hymns of Watts and the Wesleys. It is mainly patriotic rather than religious;
its purpose is to stir the soul of national enthusiasm through the long ages of the
oppression of Israel.
It is not just, however, to assert that there are no evidences of religious faith in the
story of Esther. Mordecai warns his cousin that if she will not exert herself to defend
her people, "then shall there relief and deliverance arise to the Jews from another
place." [Esther 4:14] What can this be but a reserved utterance of a devout man’s
faith in that Providence which has always followed the "favoured people"?
Moreover, Mordecai seems to perceive a Divine destiny in the exaltation of Esther
when he asks, "And who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a
time as this?" [Esther 4:14] The old commentators were not wrong when they saw
the hand of Providence in the whole story. If we are to allow some license to the
imagination of the author in the shaping and arrangement of the narrative, we must
assign to him also a real faith in Providence, for he describes a wonderful
interlinking of events all leading up to the deliverance of the Jews. Long before
Haman has any quarrel with Mordecai, the disgusting degradation of a drinking
bout issues in an insult offered to a favourite queen. This shameful occurrence is the
occasion of the selection of a Jewess, whose high position at court thus acquired
enables her to save her people. But there is a secondary plot. Mordecai’s discovery
of the conspirators who would have assassinated Ahasuerus gives him a claim on the
king’s generosity, and so prepares the way, not only for his escape from the clutches
of Haman, but also for his triumph over his enemy. And this is brought about-as we
should say-"by accident." If Xerxes had not had a sleepless night just at the right
time, if the part of his state records selected for reading to him in his wakefulness
had not been just that which told the story of Mordecai’s great service, the occasion

9. for the turn in the tide of the fortune of the Jews would not have arisen. But all was
so fitted together as to lead step by step on to the victorious conclusion. o Jew
could have penned such a story as this without having intended his co-religionists to
recognise the unseen presence of an over-ruling Providence throughout the whole
course of events.
But the gravest charge has yet to be considered. It is urged against the Book of
Esther that the moral tone of it is unworthy of Scripture. It is dedicated to nothing
higher than the exaltation of the Jews. Other books of the Bible reveal God as the
Supreme, and the Jews as His servants, often unworthy and unfaithful servants.
This book sets the Jews in the first place, and Providence, even if tacitly recognised,
is quite subservient to their welfare. Israel does not appear as living for the glory of
God, but all history works for the glory of Israel. In accordance with the spirit of
the story, everything that opposes the Jews is condemned, everything that favours
them is honoured. Worst of all, this practical deification of Israel permits a tone of
heartless cruelty. The doctrine of separatism is monstrously exaggerated. The Jews
are seen to be surrounded by their "enemies." Haman, the chief of them, is not only
punished as he richly deserves to be punished, but he is made the recipient of
unrestrained scorn and rage, and his sons are impaled on their father’s huge stake.
The Jews defended themselves from threatened massacre by a legalised slaughter of
their "enemies." We cannot imagine a scene more foreign to the patience and
gentleness inculcated by our Lord. Yet we must remember that the quarrel did not
begin with the Jews, or if we must see the origin of it in the pride of a Jew, we must
recollect that his offence was slight and only the act of one man. As far as the
narrative shows, the Jews were engaged in their peaceable occupations when they
were threatened with extinction by a violent outburst of the mad Judenhetze that
has pursued this unhappy people through all the centuries of history. In the first
instance, their act of vengeance was a measure of self-defence. If they fell upon their
enemies with fierce anger, it was after an order of extermination had driven them to
bay. If they indulged in a wholesale bloodshed, not even sparing women or children,
exactly the same doom had been hanging over their own heads, and their own wives
and children had been included in its ferocious sentence. This fact does not excuse
the savagery of the action of the Jews, but it amply accounts for their conduct. They
were wild with terror, and they defended their homes with the fury of madmen.
Their action did not go beyond the prayer of the Psalmist who wrote, in trim
metrical order, concerning the hated Babylon-
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones
Against the rock." [Psalms 137:9]
It is more difficult to account for the responsible part taken by Mordecai and Esther
in begging permission for this awful massacre. The last pages of the Book of Esther
reek with blood. A whole empire is converted into shambles for human slaughter.
We turn with loathing from this gigantic horror, glad to take refuge in the hope that
the author has dipped his brush in darker colours than the real events would
warrant. evertheless such a massacre as this is unhappily not at all beyond the

10. known facts of history on other occasions-not in its extent; the means by which it is
here carried out are doubtless exceptional. Xerxes himself was so heartless and so
capricious that any act of folly or wickedness could be credited of him.
After all that can be said for it, clearly this Book of Esther cannot claim the
veneration that we attach to the more choice utterances of Old Testament literature.
It never lifts us with the inspiration of prophecy; it never commands the reverence
which we feel in studying the historical books. Yet we must not therefore assume
that it has not its use. It illustrates an important phase in the development of Jewish
life and thought. It also introduces us to characters and incidents that reveal human
nature in very various lights. To contemplate such a revelation should not be
without profit. After the Bible, what book should we regard as, on the whole, most
serviceable for our enlightenment and nurture? Since next to the knowledge of God
the knowledge of man is most important, might we not assign this second place of
honour to the works of Shakespeare rather than to any theological treatise? And if
so may we not be grateful that something after the order of a Shakespearian
revelation of man is contained even in one book of the Bible?
It may be best to treat a book of this character in a different manner from the
weighty historical work that precedes it, and, instead of expounding its chapters
seriatim, to gather up its lessons in a series of brief character studies.
MY OTE, The book of Esther had not always been liked by all.
The Jews did not accept this book until 90 A.D. at Jamnia and many did not like it.
Athanasius drew up a list of books of Scripture in 367 A. D. And did not include
Esther. Luther wrote, “As to the second book of Maccabees and that of Esther, I
dislike them so much that I wish that they did not exist, for they are too Jewish and
have many bad pagan elements.”
Queen Vashti Deposed
1 This is what happened during the time of
Xerxes,[a] the Xerxes who ruled over 127
provinces stretching from India to Cush[b]:

11. BAR ES, "Ahasuerus - . Xerxes, the son of Darius Hystaspis. His empire is rightly
described as from India even unto Ethiopia. The satrapies of Darius Hystaspis reached
29 in number, and the nations under Xerxes were about 60. The 127 “provinces” include
probably sub-satrapies and other smaller divisions of the great governments.
CLARKE, "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: ᆦρισθᇽ µεν πρως ᅛሩ τᇽ Ερυθρᇮ θαλαττᇽ· προς
αρκτον δε τሩ Ευξεινሩ ποντሩ· προς ᅛσπεραν δε Κυπρሩ και Αιγυπτሩ· προς µεσηµβριαν δε
Αιθιοπιᇮ. “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.
GILL, "Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus,.... Who he was is not easy
to say; almost all the kings of Persia are so named by one or another writer. He cannot
be the Ahasuerus in Dan_9:1, he was Astyages, the father of Cyaxares or Darius the
Mede; but this must be one who had his royal palace in Shushan, which was never the
royal city of the Medes, but of the Persians only; nor does he seem to be the Ahasuerus in
Ezr_4:6, who is thought to be Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus; since,
according to the canon of Ptolemy, he reigned but eight years, whereas this Ahasuerus at
least reigned twelve, Est_3:7, though indeed some account for it by his reigning in his
father's lifetime; besides, Cambyses was always an enemy to the Jews, as this was not;
and yet this way go many of the Jewish writers (n) and so a very learned man, Nicolaus
Abram (o); according to Bishop Usher (p), this was Darius Hystaspis, who certainly was
a friend to the Jewish nation; but he is rather the Artaxerxes of Ezra and Nehemiah; and
so says the Midrash (q). Dr. Prideaux (r) thinks Ahasuerus was Artaxerxes Longimanus,
which is the sense of Josephus (s), and who is thought by many to be the Artaxerxes in
the foresaid books. Capellus (t) is of opinion, that Darius Ochus is meant, to which
Bishop Patrick inclines; but I rather think, with Vitringa (u) and others (w), that Xerxes
is the Ahasuerus that was the husband of Esther here spoken of; so the Arabic writers
(x); and as he was the son and successor of Darius Hystaspis, if he is meant by
Artaxerxes in the preceding books, the history of which is carried to the thirty second
year of his reign, Neh_13:6 and who reigned but four years more; this book of Esther
stands in right order of time to carry on the history of the Jewish affairs in the Persian
monarchy; and Mr. Broughton (y) owns, that the name of Xerxes, in Greek, agrees with
Achasuerus in Hebrew; and in Est_10:1 his name is Achashresh, which, with the Greeks,
is Axeres or Xerxes (z):
this is Ahasuerus, which reigned from India even unto Ethiopia; properly so
called; the Ethiopians had been subdued by Cambyses the son and successor of Cyrus
(a), and the Indians by Darius Hystaspis the father of Xerxes (b); and both, with other
great nations, were retained in subjection to him (c); and many of both, as well as of
other nations, were with him in his expedition into Greece (d):

12. over an hundred and twenty and seven provinces; there were now seven
provinces more under his jurisdiction than were in the times of Darius the Mede, Dan_
6:1.
HE RY, "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 (Est_2:5, Est_2:6), 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 (Ezr_4:6, Ezr_4:7), after his
great-grandfather of the Medes, Dan_9:1. 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_6:1); now there were 127, from India to Ethiopia, Est_1:1. 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.
JAMISO , "Est_1:1-22. Ahasuerus makes royal feasts.
Ahasuerus — It is now generally agreed among learned men that the Ahasuerus
mentioned in this episode is the Xerxes who figures in Grecian history.
K&D, "The banquet. Est_1:1-3 mark a period. ‫ה‬ ֶ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ ָ‫,ע‬ which belongs to ‫י‬ ִ‫ה‬ְ‫י‬ַ‫,ו‬ 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 ‫י‬ ִ‫ה‬ְ‫י‬ַ‫ו‬ 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 ‫ּושׁ‬‫ר‬ֵ‫ו‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫ח‬ ֲ‫א‬ 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.” ‫ה‬ָ‫ינ‬ ִ‫ד‬ ְ‫מ‬ ... ‫ע‬ ַ‫ב‬ ֶ‫שׁ‬ is not an accusative dependent on ְ‫ך‬ ֵ‫ּל‬‫מ‬, he ruled 127 provinces, for
ְ‫ך‬ ַ‫ל‬ ָ‫,מ‬ to reign, is construed with ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ or ְ , but is annexed in the form of a free apposition to
the statement: “from India to Cush;” as also in Est_8:9. ‫וּ‬ ּ‫ה‬ 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.

13. Append. p. 83, and Lassen, Indische Alterthumsk. i. p. 2. ‫וּשׁ‬ⅴ 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 ‫ּות‬‫נ‬‫י‬ ִ‫ד‬ ְ‫,מ‬ 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 ᅊρχαί which were called σατραπηιʷ́αι. 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 ‫ה‬ָ‫ינ‬ ִ‫ד‬ ְ‫,מ‬ 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.
COFFMA , "Verse 1
A HALF-DRU KE XERXES DEPOSES HIS QUEE VASHTI (AMESTRIS);
XERXES MAKES PREPARATIO S TO I VADE GREECE
" ow it came to pass in the days of Ahashuerus (this is Ahashuerus who reigned
from India even unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and twenty and seven provinces),
that in those days when the king Ahashuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom,
which was in Shushan the palace, in the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto
all his princes and his servants; the power of Persia and of Media, the nobles and
princes of the provinces, being before him; when he showed the riches of his
glorious kingdom and the honor of his excellant majesty many days, even a hundred
and fourscore days. And when these days were fulfilled, the king made a feast unto
all the people that were present in Shushan the palace, both great and small, seven
days, in the court of the garden of the king's palace. There were hangings of white
cloth, of green, and of blue, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver
rings and pillars of marble; the couches were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of
red, and white, and yellow, and black marble. And they gave them drink in vessels
of gold (the vessels being diverse one from another), and royal wine in abundance,
according to the bounty of the king. And the drinking was according to the law;
none could compel: for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house, that
they should do according to every man's pleasure."

14. Although not apparent in our text, the very first words in the the Hebrew text of the
O.T. (the Hebrew) are "and it came to pass," which is made the occasion by Duff to
declare that, "The book of Esther is a truncated narrative,"[1] but Keil pointed out
that no such conclusion is justified.[2] Many of the Biblical books begin with the
word and, indicating their connection with the rest of the canonical books of the
Bible. "Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First Samuel, Second Samuel, Ezekiel, and Jonah all
begin with the word `and'."[3]
What is revealed here is a six-months interval of intense preparations by Xerxes for
the invasion of Greece. It was terminated by a big banquet that lasted a week.
During this period all of the mighty princes of his extensive dominion were
summoned to appear, probably in successive assignments, to be entertained and to
see the king's exhibition of his power and riches, and also, most likely, to receive his
assignment to them regarding the troops each would supply for that immense army
which he gathered together for the invasion. Our text does not elaborate this; but we
learn much about it from Herodotus
"This is Ahashuerus that reigned, ..." (Esther 1:1). In the time of these events, there
were no less than three great men called Ahashuerus; the prophet Daniel mentioned
one of them, but he was not a king; and there was another Ahashuerus (also a king,
Xerxes II) mentioned by Ezra (Ezra 4:6). "Here the author of Esther, who probably
knew of the others, distinguished this Ahashuerus from the one named in Daniel as
`the Ahashuerus who reigns,' and from the king mentioned in Ezra by the enormous
size of his dominion."[4]
"Who reigned from India ... to Ethiopia" (Esther 1:1). "A foundation tablet has
been recovered from Xerxes' palace at Persepolis which lists both India and
Ethiopia as provinces of Xerxes' realm. Also Herodotus mentioned that both the
Ethiopians and the Indians paid tribute to Xerxes."[5]
"One hundred twenty and seven provinces" (Esther 1:1). We learned from Ezra
and ehemiah that there were 27 satrapies in the Perisan empire; but these
divisions were different. "The satrapies were taxation districts; but these provinces
were racial or national units in the vast empire."[6]
"In those days when Ahashuerus sat on his throne" (Esther 1:2). It is strange that
Persian kings almost constantly sat on their throne. "Herodotus wrote that Xerxes
watched the battle of Thermopylae (480 B.C.) seated on a throne! And Plutarch
wrote the same thing regarding the battle of Salamis, which came that same
year."[7]
"Upon his throne which was in Shushan the palace" (Esther 1:2). There were four
capitals of Persia; and the king, at times, reigned in each of them. These were,
"Shushan, Babylon, Ecbatana, and Persepolis."[8]
"In the third year of his reign" (Esther 1:3). As Xerxes came to his throne in the
year 486 B.C., this would have been 483, B.C.[9]

15. The magnificent decorations, the luxurious surroundings and all the glory of the
Persian palace are beautifully described in these verses. It is particularly interesting
that drinking vessels of gold, each one of a different design, were features of that
concluding banquet.
"And the drinking was according to the law" (Esther 1:8). It is amusing to us that
some of the scholars declare that there was not any such law regarding drinking;
but the text flatly says there was, and furthermore, it relates what the law was,
"They should do according to every man's desire" (Esther 1:8). This was the law,
tailor-made for that occasion by the king himself! We appreciate Keil's comment
that, "While this law granted permission for any one to drink as little as he desired,
it also allowed every one to drink as much as he desired! Drunkenness was almost a
universal sin among the Gentiles. And rulers, especially, indulged in it. Even
Alexander the Great drank himself to death. This great banquet given by Xerxes
was by no means a beautiful party. It was an unqualified disaster.
ELLICOTT, "Verse 13
"Then the king said to the wise men, who knew the times (for so was the king's
manner toward all that knew law and judgment; and next unto him were Carshena,
Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meshes, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of
Persia and Media, who saw the king's face, and sat first in the kingdom), What shall
we do unto the queen Vashti, according to law, because she hath not done the
bidding of the king Ahashuerus by the chamberlains? 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 peoples that are in all the provinces of
the king Ahashuerus. For this deed of the queen will come abroad unto all women,
to make their husbands contemptible in their eyes, when it shall be reported, The
king Ahashuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she
came not. And this day will the princesses of Persia and Media who have heard of
the deed of the queen say the like to all the king's princes. So will there arise much
contempt and wrath. If it please the king, let there go forth 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 the king Ahashuerus; and let the
king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she. And when the king's
decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his kingdom (for it is
great), all the wives shall give to their husbands honor, both to great and small. And
the saying pleased the king and the princes; and the king did according to the word
of Memucan: 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 should speak according to the language
of his people."
othing could demonstrate more forcefully the low estate of women in the ancient
world than the brutal facts of this outrage against Vashti. In all the societies of
mankind where women are unprotected by the teachings of the Son of God, women
have invariably been reduced to the status so clearly visible in this chapter. Only in

16. Jesus Christ are women elevated to the respected and honored status they deserve;
and the great pity of our generation is that women are being wooed and persuaded
by political promises of all kinds to give up their worship of the Christ. They are
promised "equality" with men; but it is a specious `equality,' like that which the
women of Russsia got when they gave up even an imperfect Christianity for
communism. It turned out to be "equality" to carry the bricks, sweep the streets,
and work till they dropped dead in the fields. Let the women of America beware!
The seven princes of Persia and Media (Esther 1:14). In the book of Daniel, one
finds the expression, "The law of the Medes and the Persians"; but a little later in
this chapter, it reads, "The law of the Persians and the Medes." Why the difference?
In Daniel's day, the king was a Mede (Darius); so the Medes were mentioned first,
but now Xerxes, a Persian, was the ruler; so the Persians came first! The Medes and
the Persians were the two principal races that formed the Medo-Persian Empire,
but it was never two empires - only one.
It is of interest that Xerxes' letter to all the 127 ethnic groups in his empire was
addressed to each one of the groups in their native language. Also, there was added
that provision that every man should use only his native language in his own house,
which certainly presented a problem in homes where there were mixed marriages
with the races. Such a law was unenforceable. But as Keil noted, "Xerxes was the
author of many strange facts besides this."[12]
Halley and others held the opinion that one of the last actions of Xerxes before he
left on that four-year campaign against Greece was the deposition of Vashti, and
that, "He did not marry Esther until four years later in 478 B.C., after he returned
from the Grecian campaign."[13] This accounts for the four-year gap between this
chapter and the next one. This conclusion is fully supported by the writings of
Herodotus
TRAPP, "Esther 1:1 ow 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:)
Ver. 1. ow it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus] This book is in the Hebrew
called Esther, because she is a chief party therein mentioned and memorized. The
Rabbis call it Megillath Esther, that is, the volume of Esther; and further tell us that
there be five such volumes of Scripture books; viz. Solomon’s Song, Ruth,
Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and this of Esther: which they use to read all over in
their synagogues, five times a year. 1. Solomon’s Song at the Passover; in
remembrance of their one time 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 Jeremiah on the ninth day of the fifth
month (that is, of August); in regard to the Babylonian captivity, and ruin 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 wandered in the wilderness. 5. Lastly, this of Esther, on the

17. fourteenth and fifteenth days of the month Adar, or February; and as often as they
hear mention of Haman, they do, even to this day, with their fists and hammers beat
upon the benches and boards, as if they did beat upon Haman’s head (R. Abraham,
Hispanus cognom, σοφος). They tell us that this book was written by Mordecai
himself, an eyewitness and a main party, according to Esther 9:20, and have ever
reckoned it among the Chetubin or Hagiographa, that is, the books of Holy
Scripture. Indeed, because they find not the name of God or Lord in this whole
book, they have a custom 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, Yεος, Yεος, God,
God, so might the Jews upon this; there being nowhere in Scripture found more
remarkable passages and acts of God’s immediate providence for his calamitous
people than in this. Surely (saith a great divine) like as a man by a chain made up of
several links, some of gold, others of silver, some of brass, 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 dependence 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 days of Ahasuerus] That is, of Xerxes, the terror of Greece, called
Ahasuerosh, that is, a hereditary, begotten by king Darius, and born of a king’s
daughter, viz. Atossa, daughter to Cyrus, and heir of the kingdom by lineal descent.
Such a hereditary prince was our Henry VIII. Greek authors also call Xerxes,
Oxyastris, and his wife Amestris, which seemeth to be the same as Esther, who is
called Amestris by a like composition, saith an interpreter, as Haman’s father was
called Ham-Adata, an honourable addition to a name among the Persians.
This is Ahasuerus which reigned from India even unto Ethiopia] viz. Inclusive, 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; as is now the Great Turk, not inferior in greatness and strength, to the
mightiest monarchs that ever yet were upon the face of the earth. o part of the
world is left untouched by him but America only; not more fortunate, saith one,
with her rich mines, than in that she is so far from so great and dangerous an
enemy. evertheless of all this greatness (belluine rather than 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 housekeeper of the world.
The inheritance he reserves for his children; who though held here to strait
allowance, yet are far dearer to him than the world’s greatest darlings; as the poor
captive Jews were, than this great emperor. Those that seek a mystery in this history
tell us, that Ahasuerus typically representeth God the Father ruling over all
kingdoms and creatures on earth; choosing some to be heirs of heaven, and
purifying them for that purpose. Mordecai (signifying bitter and contrite) setteth
forth Christ, say they, broken for our sins, and suffering the bitter wrath of God.
Esther (being the same with Alma, Isaiah 7:14, a pure virgin, secreted and secured
from defilement) is a lively image of the Church, unspotted by the world, and

18. provided for by her Mordecai. The disdainful Vashti (taking her name from Shatha,
to drink) is a fit effigy of the world, proud and luxurious, and therefore excluded
heaven. Haman (signifying a tumultuous and obstreperous person) represents the
devil, restless and rageful, but to his own utter ruin, &c. These are pretty things, but
not so proper. The Popish commentators are full of them.
Over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces] Seven more than were in Darius
the Mede’s time, Daniel 6:1. Monarchs will be still adding; and although a man were
monarch of the whole world, yea, had the command of moon 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, fourteen
thousand five hundred and threescore Euboian talents: so that this monarchy is fitly
compared (in Daniel) to the silver breast and arms in ebuchadnezzar’s image.
BE SO , "Esther 1:1. In the days of Ahasuerus — Many suppose this king to have
been Darius Hystaspes, 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, Esther 2:7. But the most likely opinion,
and that which is approved by Josephus, the Septuagint, and the apocryphal
additions to the book of Esther, is, that this Ahasuerus of the Scripture was
Artaxerxes Longimanus, as he is called by the heathen writers. One thing is certain,
that he was one of the Persian kings, and a successor of Cyrus the Great, for there
was no such large empire in those parts, under one king, before Cyrus’s time.
WHEDO , "THE ROYAL FEAST AT SHUSHA , Esther 1:1-9.
1. This is Ahasuerus — Our author is careful to distinguish this Ahasuerus from
other monarchs of the same name who are mentioned in the Hebrew books. We read
of a Median Ahasuerus in Daniel 9:1, and in Ezra 4:6 Cambyses, son of Cyrus,
bears the same name. either of these, however, reigned from India even unto
Ethiopia, that is, from the Indus to the Upper ile. But as three different Persian
kings reigned over this extent of country, we conclude that the name Ahasuerus was
not, as some have imagined, a title common to all the kings of Persia. Only one of
these three wide-ruling sovereigns was known as Ahasuerus, and him we identify
with Xerxes, the son and successor of Darius Hystaspis. For the argument by which
this opinion is supported, see Introduction. The word India ( ‫,הדו‬ Hoddu) occurs in
the Bible only here and in Esther 8:9, and designates the country bordering on the
river Indus, but not including, as now, the whole peninsula of Hindostan.
Ethiopia — Hebrew, Gush; the name of an indefinite extent of country bordering on
the south of Egypt, and watered by the branches of the Upper ile. Herodotus
mentions (vii, 9) both Indians and Ethiopians as subjects of Xerxes.
A hundred and seven and twenty provinces — These provinces were subdivisions of
the Persian empire, according to races or tribes inhabiting different localities. They
are not to be confounded with satrapies, for one satrapy might include many

19. provinces. Darius Hystaspis divided the empire into twenty satrapies, (Herod., 3:89,)
each of which comprised a number of nations or tribes. The Jewish community at
Jerusalem formed a province, (Ezra 2:1; ehemiah 1:3,) but it was under a
governor of the region west of the Euphrates. See note on Ezra 5:3. Darius the Mede
set over his Babylonian kingdom one hundred and twenty “princes,” (Daniel 6:2,)
but these were not the same as the Persian satraps, who resembled rather the “three
presidents of whom Daniel was first,” while the “princes” were probably more like
the rulers of provinces in the later Persian empire.
COKE, "Esther 1:1. In the days of Ahasuerus— Archbishop Usher is of opinion,
that Darius Hystaspes was the king Ahasuerus who married Esther, that Atossa was
the Vashti, and Artystona the Esther, of the Holy Scriptures; but Herodotus
positively tells us, that Artystona was the daughter of Cyrus, and therefore could
not be Esther; and that Atossa had four sons by Darius, besides daughters, all born
to him after he was king; and therefore she could not be that queen Vashti who was
divorced from the king her husband in the third year of his reign, (Esther 1:3.) nor
he the Ahasuerus who divorced her. Joseph Scaliger is of opinion, that Xerxes is the
Ahasuerus, and Hamestris, his queen, the Esther of the Holy Scriptures; but,
whatever seeming similitude there may be in the names, (and this is the whole
foundation of his conjecture,) it is plain, from Herodotus, that Xerxes had a son by
Hamestris, who was marriageable in the seventh year of his reign; and therefore it is
impossible that he should have been Esther's son, because Esther was not married to
Ahasuerus till the seventh year of his reign, chap. Esther 2:16. And, considering that
the choice of virgins was made for him in the fourth of his reign, and a whole year
employed in their purifications, the soonest that she could have a son by him must
be in the sixth; and therefore we may conclude with Josephus, the Septuagint, and
the apocryphal additions to the book of Esther, that the Ahasuerus of Scripture was
Artaxerxes Longimanus, and Esther a Hebrew virgin, as she is all along
represented. See Prideaux and Calmet.
CO STABLE, "1. The king"s feast1:1-9
Ahasuerus is the Hebrew name of the Persian king, Khshayarsha, whom we know
better in ancient history by his Greek name, Xerxes. [ ote: Lewis B. Paton, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther , p54. Cf. Ezra 4:5-7;
Daniel 11:2.] He reigned over the Persian Empire from486 to464 B.C. and was the
son of Darius I (521-486 B.C.). Another high-ranking Persian government officer,
Artabanus, eventually assassinated him.
Xerxes is famous in secular history for two things: his defeat at the hands of the
Greeks, and his building of the royal Persian palace at Persepolis. In481 B.C. he
took about200 ,000 soldiers and hundreds of ships to Greece to avenge his father
Darius" loss at the battle of Marathon (490 B.C.). However, he too suffered defeat,
in a three-fold manner. His soldiers lost the battle of Thermopylae to the Spartans,
his army also lost at the battle of Plataea, and the Greeks destroyed his navy in the
battle of Salamis.

20. The writer mentioned the vast area Xerxes controlled (cf. Esther 8:9; Esther 10:1).
Perhaps he did this to avoid confusion with another Ahasuerus ( Daniel 9:1) whose
Song of Solomon , Darius the Mede, governed the Babylonian provinces under
Cyrus the Great from539 to about525 B.C. "India" refers to the territory that is
now western Pakistan. "Cush" was the upper (southern) ile region including
southern Egypt, the Sudan, Eritrea, and northern Ethiopia, land west of the Red
Sea. The127 "provinces" (Heb. medina) were governmental units of the empire.
These were political subdivisions of the satrapies (cf. Esther 3:12). [ ote: F. B. Huey
Jeremiah , " Esther ," in1Kings- Job , vol4of The Expositor"s Bible Commentary,
p798.]
"Susa" ( Esther 1:2) is the Greek name for the Hebrew "Shushan." It was a winter
capital and had formerly been the capital of the kingdom of Elam. Susa was the
name of both the capital city and the royal fortress that occupied a separate part of
the city. [ ote: Ibid, p298.] Other Persian capitals were Ecbatana (200 miles north
of Susa, modern Hamadan, Ezra 6:2), Babylon (200 miles west, Ezra 6:1),
Pasargadae, and Persepolis (both300 miles southeast). [ ote: See Edwin M.
Yamauchi, "The Achaemenid Capitals," ear Esat Archaeology Society Bulletin,
S8 (1976):5-81.] Persepolis was Xerxes" main residence. [ ote: Breneman, p304.]
Forty years after the events the writer described in the Book of Esther , ehemiah
served as cupbearer to Artaxerxes, Xerxes" son (cf. ehemiah 1:1 to ehemiah 2:1).
The Hebrew word translated "capital" ( ASB) or "citadel" ( IV habirah) refers to
an acropolis or fortified area that stood72feet above the rest of the city. A wall two
and one-half miles long surrounded it. [ ote: Ibid.]
The third year of Ahasuerus" (Xerxes") reign ( Esther 1:3) was evidently482 B.C.
For180 days (six months) he entertained his guests ( Esther 1:4). This was evidently
the military planning session that Ahasuerus conducted to prepare for his campaign
against the Greeks. The Greek historian Herodotus referred to this meeting and said
it took Ahasuerus four years (484-481 B.C.) to prepare for his Greek campaign.
[ ote: Herodotus, The Histories, 7:8 , 20.] Ahasuerus" Persian army suffered defeat
at the hands of the Greeks at Plataea in479 B.C.
"While labourers received barely enough to live on, even though they were
producing works of art that are still unsurpassed, life at court was extravagant
beyond imagining. The more lavish the king"s hospitality, the greater his claim to
supremacy." [ ote: Baldwin, p55.]
White and violet (blue, Esther 1:6) were the royal colors of Persia. [ ote: John C.
Whitcomb, Esther: Triumph of God"s Sovereignty, p37.] This palace burned to the
ground about435 B.C, toward the end of Artaxerxes" reign. [ ote: A. T. Olmstead,
History of the Persian Empire, p352.]
Banquets are a prominent feature of this story. At least nine receive mention (
Esther 1:1-9; Esther 2:18; Esther 3:15; Esther 5:4; Esther 5:8; Esther 8:17; Esther
9:17-19).

21. EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE COMME TARY
AHASUERUS A D VASHTI
Esther 1:1-22
THE character of Ahasuerus illustrates the emesis of absolutism, by showing how
unlimited power is crushed and dissolved beneath the weight of its own immensity.
The very vastness of his domains overwhelms the despot. While he thinks himself
free to disport according to his will, he is in reality the slave of his own machinery of
government. He is so entirely dependent for information on subordinates, who can
deceive him to suit their own private ends, that he often becomes a mere puppet of
the political wire-pullers. In the fury of his passion he issues his terrible mandates,
with the confidence of a master whose slightest whim is a law to the nations, and yet
that very passion has been cleverly worked up by some of his servants, who are
laughing in their sleeves at the simplicity of their dupe, even while they are fawning
on him with obsequious flattery. In the story of Esther Ahasuerus is turned about
hither and thither by his courtiers, according as one or another is clever enough to
obtain a temporary hearing. In the opening scene he is the victim of a harem plot
which deprives him of his favourite consort. Subsequently Haman poisons his mind
with calumnies about a loyal, industrious section of his subjects. He is only
undeceived by another movement in the harem. Even the jealously guarded women
of the royal household know more of the actual state of affairs in the outside world
than the bewildered monarch. The king is so high above his realm that he cannot see
what is going on in it, and all that he can learn about it passes through such a
variety of intermediary agents that it is coloured and distorted in the process.
But this is not all. The man who is exalted to the pedestal of a god is made dizzy by
his own altitude. Absolutism drove the Roman Emperor Caligula mad, it punished
the Xerxes of Herodotus with childishness. The silly monarch who would decorate a
tree with the jewellery of a prince in reward for its fruitfulness, and flog and chain
the Hellespont as a punishment for its tempestuousness, is not fit to be let out of the
nursery. Such conduct as his discovers an ineptitude that is next door to idiocy.
When the same man appears on the pages of Scripture under the name of
Ahasuerus, his weakness is despicable. The most keen-sighted ruler of millions is
liable to be misinformed, the strongest administrator of a gigantic empire is
compelled to move with difficulty in the midst of the elaborate organisation of his
government. But Ahasuerus is neither keen-sighted nor strong. He is a victim of the
last court intrigue, a believer in the idlest gossip, and he is worse, for even on the
suppositions presented to him he behaves with folly and senseless fury. His conduct
to Vashti is first insulting and then ungrateful, for fidelity to her worthless husband
would prompt her to decline to risk herself among a crew of drunken revellers. His
consent to the diabolical proposal of his grand vizier for a massacre, without an
atom of proof that the victims are guilty, exhibits a hopeless state of mental
feebleness, His equal readiness to transfer the mandate of wholesale murder to
persons described indefinitely as the "enemies" of these people shows how

22. completely he is twisted about by the latest breeze. As the palace plots develop we
see this great king in all his pride and majesty tossed to and fro like a shuttle-cock.
And yet he can sting. It is a dangerous game for the players, and the object of it is to
get the deadly venom of the royal rage to light on the head of the opposite party. We
could not have a more certain proof of the vanity of "ambition that o’er leaps itself"
than this conversion of immeasurable power into helpless weakness on the part of
the Persian sovereign. We naturally start with this glaring exhibition of the irony of
fate in our study of Ahasuerus, because it is the most pronounced factor in his
character and career. There are other elements of the picture, however, which are
not, like this, confined to the abnormal experience of solitary rulers. ext to the
revenge of absolutism on its possessor, the more vulgar effects of extravagant luxury
and self-indulgence are to be seen in the degraded Persian court life. Very likely the
writer of our Book of Esther introduces these matters with the primary object of
enhancing the significance of his main theme by making us feel how great a danger
the Jews were in, and how magnificent a triumph was won for them by the heroic
Jewess of the harem. But the scene that he thus brings before us throws light on the
situation all round. Xerxes’ idea of unbridled power is that it admits of unlimited
pleasure. Our author’s picture of the splendid palace, with its richly coloured
awnings stretched across from marble pillars to silver rods over the tesselated
pavement, where the most exalted guests recline in the shade on gold and silver
seats, while they feast hugely and drink heavily day after day, . shows us how the
provinces were being drained to enrich the court, and how the royal treasury was
being lavished on idle festivity. That was bad enough, but its effects were worse. The
law was license. "The drinking was according to the law," and this law was that
there should be no limit to it, everybody taking just as much wine as he pleased.
aturally such a rule ostentatiously paraded before a dissolute company led to a
scene of downright bestial debauchery. According to Herodotus, the Persians were
addicted to drunkenness, and the incident described in the first chapter of Esther is
quite in accordance with the Greek historian’s account of the followers of Xerxes.
The worst effect of this vice of drunkenness is its degrading influence on the conduct
and character of men. It robs its victims of self-respect and manliness, and sends
them to wallow in the mire with swinish obscenity. What they would not dream of
stooping to in their sober moments, they revel in with shameless ostentation when
their brains are clouded with intoxicating drink. Husbands, who are gentle and
considerate at other times, are then transformed into brutes, who can take pleasure
in trampling on their wives. It is no excuse to plead that the drunkard is a madman
unaccountable for his actions; he is accountable for having put himself in his
degraded condition. If he is temporarily insane, he has poisoned his own intellect by
swallowing a noxious drug with his eyes open. He is responsible for that action, and
therefore he must be held to be responsible for its consequences. If he had given due
consideration to his conduct, he might have foreseen whither it was tending. The
man who has been foolish enough to launch his boat on the rapids cannot divert its
course when he is startled by the thunder of the falls he is approaching, but he
should have thought of that before leaving the safety of the shore.
The immediate consequence of the disgusting degradation of drunkenness, in the

23. case of Ahasnerus, is that the monarch grossly insults his queen. A moment’s
consideration would have suggested the danger as well as the scandal of his
behaviour. But in his heedless folly the debauchee hurls himself over the precipice,
from the height of his royal dignity down to the very pit of ignominy, and then he is
only enraged that Vashti refuses to be dragged down with him. It is a revolting
scene, and one to show how the awful vice of drunkenness levels all distinctions;
here it outrages the most sacred rules of Oriental etiquette. The seclusion of the
harem is to be violated for the amusement of the dissolute king’s boon companions.
In the story of Esther poor Vashti’s fall is only introduced in order to make way for
her Hebrew rival. But after-ages have naturally sided with the wronged queen. Was
it true modesty that prompted her daring refusal, or the lawful pride of
womanhood? If so, all women should honour Vashti as the vindicator of their dues.
Whatever "woman’s rights" may be maintained in the field of politics, the very
existence of the home, the basis of society itself, depends on those more profound
and inalienable rights that touch the character of pure womanliness. The first of a
woman’s rights is the right to her own person. But this right is ignored in Oriental
civilisation. The sweet English word "home" is unknown in the court of such a king
as Ahasuerus. To think of it in this connection is as incongruous as to imagine a
daisy springing up through the boards of a dancing saloon. The unhappy Vashti had
never known this choicest of words, but she may have had a due conception of a
woman’s true dignity, as far as the perverted ideas of the East permitted. And yet
even here a painful suspicion obtrudes itself on our notice. Vashti had been feasting
with the women of the harem when she received the brutal mandate from her lord.
Had she too lost her balance of judgment under the bewitching influence of the
wine-cup? Was she rendered reckless by the excitement of her festivities? Was her
refusal the result of the factitious courage that Springs from an unwholesome
excitement or an equally effective mental stupor? Since one of the commonest
results of intoxication is a quarrelsomeness of temper, it must be admitted that
Vashti’s flat refusal to obey may have some connection with her previous festivities.
In that case, of course, something must be detracted from her glory as the martyr of
womanliness. A horrible picture is this-a drunken king quarrelling with his
drunken queen, these two people, set in the highest places in their vast realm,
descending. from the very pinnacle of greatness to grovel in debased intemperance!
It would not be fair to the poor, wronged queen to assert so much without any clear
evidence in support of the darker view of her conduct. Still it must be admitted that
it is difficult for any of the members of a dissolute society to keep their garments
clean, Unhappily it is only too frequently the case that, even in a Christian land,
womanhood is degraded by becoming the victim of intemperance. o sight on earth
is more sickening. A woman may be loaded with insults, and yet she may keep her
soul white as the soul of St. Agnes. It is not an outrage on her dignity, offered by the
drunken king to his queen that really marks her degradation. To all fair judgments,
that only degrades the brute who offers it, but the white lily is bruised and trampled
in the dust when she who wears it herself consents to fling it away.
The action of Ahasuerus on receipt of his queen’s refusal reveals another trait in his
weak character. Jealous eyes always watching the favourite of the harem discover

24. an opportunity for a gleeful triumph. The advisers of the king are cunning enough
to set the action of Vashti in the light of a public example. If a woman in so exalted a
position is permitted to disobey her husband with impunity, other wives will appeal
to her case and break out of bounds. It is a mean plea, the plea of weakness on the
part of the speaker, Memucan, the last of the seven princes. Is this man only finding
an excuse for the king? or may it be supposed that his thoughts are travelling away
to a shrew in his own home? The strange thing is that the king is not content with
wreaking his vengeance on the proud Vashti. He is persuaded to utilise the occasion
of her act of insubordination in order to issue a decree commanding the subjection
of all wives to their husbands. The queen’s conduct is treated as an instance of a
growing spirit of independence on the part of the women of Persia, which must be
crushed forthwith. One would think that the women were slaves, and that the
princes were acting like the Romans when they issued repressive measures from
dread of a "Servile War."
If such a law as this had ever been passed, we might well understand the complaint
of those who say it is unjust that the function of legislation should be monopolised
by one sex. Even in the West, where women are comparatively free and are
supposed to be treated on an equality with men, wrong is often done because the
laws which concern them more especially are all made by men. In the East, where
they are regarded as property, like their husbands’ camels and oxen cruel injustice
is inevitable. But this injustice cannot go unpunished. It must react on its
perpetrators, blunting their finer feelings, lowering their better nature, robbing
them of those sacred confidences of husband and wife which never spring up on the
territory of the slave-driver.
But we have only to consider the domestic edict of Ahasuerus to see its frothy vanity.
When it was issued it must have struck everybody who had the faintest sense of
humour as simply ridiculous. It is not by the rough instrumentality of the law that
difficult questions of the relations between the sexes can be adjusted. The law can
see that a formal contract is not violated with impunity. The law can protect the
individual parties to the contract from the most brutal forms of cruelty-though even
this is very difficult between husband and wife. But the law cannot secure real
justice in the home. This must be left to the working of principles of righteousness
and to the mutual considerateness of those who are concerned. Where these
elements are wanting, no legislation on matrimony can restore the peace of a
shattered home.
The order of Ahasuerus, however, was too indefinite to have very serious results.
The tyrannical husband would not have waited for any such excuse as it might
afford him for exacting obedience from his oppressed household drudge. The
strong-minded woman would mock at the king’s order, and have her own way as
before. Who could hinder her? Certainly not her husband. The yoke of years of
meek submission was not to be broken in a day by a royal proclamation. But
wherever the true idea of marriage was realised-and we must have sufficient faith in
human nature to be assured that this was sometimes the case even in the realm of
Xerxes-the husband and wife who knew themselves to be one, united by the closest

25. ties of love and sympathy and mutual confidence, would laugh in their happiness
and perhaps spare a thought of pity for the poor, silly king who was advertising his
domestic troubles to the world, and thereby exhibiting his shallow notions of
wedded life-blind, absolutely blind, to the sweet secret that was heaven to them.
We may be sure that the singular edict remained a dead letter. But the king would
be master in his own palace. So Vashti fell. We hear no more of her, but we can
guess too well what her most probable fate must have been. The gates of death are
never difficult to find in an Oriental palace; there are always jealous rivals eager to
triumph over the fall of a royal favourite. Still Ahasuerus had been really fond of
the queen who paid so dearly for her one act of independence. Repenting of his
drunken rage, the king let his thoughts revert to his former favourite, a most
dangerous thing for those who had hastened her removal. The easiest escape for
them was to play on his coarse nature by introducing to his notice a bevy of girls
from whom he might select a new favourite. This was by no means a dignified
proceeding for Esther, the maiden to whom the first prize in the exhibition of beauty
was awarded by the royal fancier. But it gave her the place of power from which to
help her people in their hour of desperate need. And here we come to some
redeeming features in the character of the king. He is not lacking in generosity, and
he owns to a certain sense of justice. In the crowd of royal cares and pleasures, he
has forgotten how an obscure Jew saved his life by revealing one of the many plots
that make the pleasures of a despot as hollow a mockery as the feast of Damocles.
On the chance discovery of his negligence, Ahasuerus hastens to atone for it with
ostentatious generosity. Again, no sooner does he find that he has been duped by
Haman into an act of cruel injustice than he tries to counteract the mischief by an
equally savage measure of retaliation. A strange way of administering justice! Yet it
must be admitted that in this the capricious, blundering king means honestly. The
bitter irony of it all is that so awful a power of life and death should be lodged in the
hands of one who is so totally incapacitated for a wise use of it.
PARKER, "The Opening
IT is important to remember that there are three men mentioned in the old
Testament under the name of Ahasuerus. If we forget this fact we shall now and
then be in confusion as to certain ancient policies. The Ahasuerus mentioned in this
chapter is supposed to be Xerxes, a man who ascended the throne485 b.c. Twenty
years afterwards he was murdered by two of his own officers. He had everything
that heart could wish—his eyes stood out with fatness—yet his life was marked by
dissipation and debauchery of an extreme degree He shows us just what man would
be if he had everything he could desire, and if he were unrestrained by moral
considerations This Xerxes had been flushed with his success in Egypt, his cheeks
were red with glory, his eyes were ablaze with self-complacency. He was just
meditating an invasion of Greece, and therefore he would have a feast worthy of the
greatest of kings. He did not hesitate indeed to call himself king of kings. So here we
have a feast extending over a hundred and eighty days, and more—half a year"s
eating and drinking, night and day. Let us see what happened under such
circumstances. What could be better, what could be more conducive to real joy, to

26. boisterous gladness, than a hundred and eighty days at the banqueting-table?
But first let us look at the external pomp of the occasion, and mark its vanity:—he
showed the nobles and princes of the provinces "the riches of his glorious kingdom
and the honour of his excellent majesty," and the whole display took place in the
grandest of palaces,—"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.
And they gave them drink in vessels of gold, (the vessels being diverse one from
another [no two vessels alike, so that sometimes the drinkers did not know which to
praise the more, the drink or the goblet]) and royal wine in abundance, according to
the state [that Isaiah , the estate, royalty, and splendour] of the king." Sometimes we
say, looking upon the abodes of poverty, What can we expect here of decency, moral
education, and progress? See how the poor are huddled and crowded together, what
can be looked for here but a hotbed bringing forth a most evil harvest? All that is
right. ot a word in the speech would we change. But if there is any argument in it
at all it is an argument that covers a large space. Here is a man who has room
enough, he has everything at his command; if he wants gold or silver or precious
stones, he can have them by a nod of his head: what can we expect here but piety,
thankfulness, contentment, moral progress? Family life under such a canopy must
be a daily doxology, a sweet hallowed thing more of heaven than of earth. This
would be a fair application of the first argument, if there is anything in that first
argument at all.
Observe the vanity of the royal external condition. There was nothing else to live
for. Here is a man who lived for time and sense: a new goblet was a delight, another
horse was another kingdom; he had no vision beyond for which he cared; what
heaven he had was in theory; we read nothing of his morals, his conduct, his
spiritual inspiration; he is wrapped round and round with an infinite bandage of
inventory. If it had not been so history would have been lacking in one important
lesson. We should have said, Give a man enough of this world, and you will find him
almost a god. There have been men here and there who have had the world thrust
upon them, and the only element that was wanting under all the burden of their
riches was the element of godliness. It is difficult to carry heaven in one hand and
the earth in the other: "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Yet men do not believe
these stories of Ahasuerus and of Solomon. If they did, their whole course of life
would be altered; their domestic expenses would be reduced to a minimum. But the
whole struggle of modern life is exactly after the first chapter of the Book of Esther
and the first chapter of the Book of Ecclesiastes. Every Ahasuerus thinks he could
do better than his namesake, and every new Solomon says that he would never play
the fool as the old one did. What little toy-houses are ours as compared with this
palace; and yet we will persist Why do we not believe history? Why do we not
accept the verdict that it is not in time or sense, in gold or precious stones, to make a
man great or happy, to make him wise or bless him with the infinite fortune of
contentment? When we have built up our little toy places, Ahasuerus looks down
upon them, and smiles at the little honeycombs. His "beds were of gold and silver,
upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black, marble." All these names

27. are not colours; they are substances, they are jewels, they are precious works; there
was not a single inch upon which a finger-tip could be laid that was not made the
most of by artistic skill. Yet it was an elaborate tomb, a magnificent sarcophagus!
Still, how we spin and spin, and toil and imagine, and dream, and get things
together, and when it is all done our little snowball of success is looked down upon
by the Jungfraus and Mont Blancs with unutterable disdain. When will men come
to learn that a man"s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he
possesseth; that he is most jewelled who has no jewellery; that he only is great who
is great in soul? ever will the world learn that lesson, would be the verdict if the
judges limited their inferences to immediate fact and experience. The purpose of the
cross of Christ was to destroy all these little jewel-caskets, and all these toy
inventions, and to bring men to feel that the body itself is a burden, and is only to be
tolerated as necessary to the cultivation and development of the soul.
See what even kings are when morally uneducated and unrestrained! A man who
sleeps on a bed of gold must wake up to do good. So one would think. The reasoning
seems to be solid and transparent. He who spends a night under a canopy of silver,
and opens his eyes upon all things lovely, must hasten away to make all men as wise
and happy as himself. It is not in the world to make heavenly minds. This is the
necessity of the case. There is nothing in bread, or gold, or fine raiment, or pomp, or
vanity, that can touch the soul. But this lesson the poor moralist may urge for ever,
and he will only be plying the drowsy attention of reluctant ears. We still think that
the philosopher"s stone will be found tomorrow. That streak of superstition runs
through the devoutest minds. We go down to the marketplace to bring back what
the marketplace never sold; we say to one another, Good-bye, until eventide, and
from marketplace, exchange, emporium, I will bring back a divine benediction; and
when we bring back the reticule that was to have contained the prize, behold it is an
empty basket. Yet man grows no wiser! The moment Sunday passes away like a
ghost, a wraith of time on which man would never willingly gaze, he seizes Monday
as it were by the throat and says, Give me peace, contentment, rest; and the poor
day says, It is not in my keeping—not in time, but in eternity must immortal men
find safe footing and perfect calm.
We must beware of the sophism in both sides of a very popular argument, namely,
that if men had enough they would be good, and because men have not enough what
can they be but bad. Character is not in circumstances. The poorest people have, in
no solitary instances easily numbered, most vividly illustrated the purest and noblest
character. There are kings who are paupers; there are paupers who are kings. How
long should the moralist preach this truth? He will preach it many a year in the
wilderness, and his best hearers will go immediately after his voice has ceased and
buy another rim of gold. We owe everything to moral education—we owe nothing to
kingly splendour. If any king has ever done anything for the world, he did it because
he was a good Prayer of Manasseh , not merely because he was a titular king. Every
known moral gift is consecrated to the lower faculties; how to make the body
stronger, fairer, is the great question of the sensualist. Paint it; take grey-haired
nature and steep her in the dye-tub, and make her young with colour! Is this the
speech of immortal Prayer of Manasseh , divinest creature of God? Yes, it comes to

28. that, if we have nothing but gold, and marble, and paint, and palace, and crown.
How can we expect a road to end in two opposite directions? This is precisely what
men are doing who imagine that by travelling the road of great state and splendour
they will come into heaven. The road does not lie in that direction. Suppose you seek
a city in the south, and I direct you upon a northern road, by what terms would you
describe my direction and my spirit? Suppose I saw you walking south in order to
get north, and never said a word about it, would you account me neighbourly, civil,
friendly, just when by one word I could have put you on the right course? When I
see a man mounting a horse with a view of riding to heaven, I feel bound to tell him
that he is a fool, and will never get there. There is no bridle-path to heaven; it is a
way of the cross, and self-immolation, and agonising prayer. o horse ever took a
rider to heaven. Would you be great? Be great in soul.
Here is an opportunity for every man to be great—great in patience, in self-control,
in charity, in magnanimity. A man is great because he takes great views of others,
conceives liberal things for God and carries them out with both hands. So the
poorest may be rich; the giver of mites may throw the giver of gold into contempt.
What say we of working the miracles of goodness, of speaking to those who have no
friends, of visiting the uttermost abodes of poverty and the lowest tenements of
distress? All the miracles of goodness are yet to be done. Miracles of power have
dazzled the vision of history,—now we may not show the glory, but we may disclose
the goodness of God. Surely a palace will be a sanctuary. The palace of this man was
worse than a stable. Surely in the presence of beauty men must grow beautiful? This
man looked on beauty but did not see it, and perpetrated the irony of living amongst
beautiful things until he became himself ghastly and hideous. How sad a thing when
the house is greater than the tenant! How distressing a contradiction when the
furniture is of greater value than the man who owns it! This was the case with the
great Xerxes. o man had so many drinking-cups, no two guests had a cup of the
same pattern; and as for the drinking of the royal wine, it was in abundance, the
more it was drunk the more there seemed to be left to drink. ever did Pleasure
hold such carnival; never were such Saturnalia known in all the earth. Yet the men
did not retire from it heroes and chiefs of virtue and beneficence; they staggered
away from it half beast, half devil.
ow we shall see some revelations of character. otably we see how selfishness
never considers the feelings of others. It occurred to the drunken king, when his
heart "was merry with wine," to consult the seven chamberlains that waited always
upon Persian monarchs. The seven chamberlains were the seven heads of seven
houses; they constituted a kind of domestic cabinet always consulted by the king on
critical, delicate, or difficult occasions. The king commanded the chamberlains "to
bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown royal, to show the people and
the princes her beauty" ( Esther 1:11). Did he send a message to Vashti to ask if she
would be willing? When was woman ever honoured out of Christ, who redeemed
her from her social estrangement and solitude, and set her forth invested with the
queenliness of a God-given beauty and modesty? Hear the king—Fetch Vashti now,
and make a show of her beauty, for she is fair to look upon. All this is in natural
order. Selfishness never considers the feeling of others. Selfishness will be gratified

29. at all costs and hazards. When a man"s heart is merry with wine, all that is most
sacred in humanity goes out of him. Still the king is in search of jewels, he will now
have a living diamond; he dashed his goblet to the earth and said, That is a dead
thing—fetch the living goblet, and let us drink blood, and feast our eyes upon
throbbing beauty! Who can withhold anything from a ravenous beast? Who should
stay his power, and say, Be quiet, be self-controlled, be contented? one. This is
human nature when it is left to itself. Because we cannot do these things we must not
reason that therefore they cannot be done. History is useful in so far as it sets before
us what has actually been done by man. The king said, My wife is as my horse, my
slave, my dog; if I order wife, or dog, or slave, or horse to stand before me, who
should say me nay? Yet who can control the working of the Spirit of God? It may be
that Vashti for the first time in her life will resist. We do not always know why we
resist, why we commence new courses and policies of life; we are oftentimes a
surprise to ourselves; we never could have believed that we could have been found
in such and such relations, or uttering such and such words and vows. The heart of
man is in the hand of the Lord. We can explain next to nothing.
LA GE, "Esther 1:1-8. The King’s Banquet.—The point of departure in this
history is formed by a feast at which Ahasuerus was unexpectedly humbled and
provoked to wrath, while purposing to show his great majesty.
Esther 1:1. ow it came to pass,etc. The sentence begun here, in its chief fact really
follows Esther 1:3. There it is stated that Ahasuerus made a feast in the third year of
his reign. The ‫ו‬ at the beginning has not the conjunctive sense that it has in Ezra 1:1,
but stands more indefinite. A Hebrew would understand this as a matter of which
much had already been related, and of which the following is only a continuation.
Thus he would proceed often with a ‫ו‬ without attaching any definite meaning to it.
‫ִי‬‫ה‬ְ‫י‬ַ‫ו‬ has come to be a conventional formula for a beginning, comp. Jonah 1:4;
Ezekiel 1:1; Isaiah 53:2, et al.Ahasuerus (Achashverosh) written in cuneiform letters
(comp. Lassen, Zeitschr. zur Kunde des M. L. VI, p 123 sqq.; Benfey, Die pers.
Keilin-schrift, p 63 sqq) Khsy-arsha, whence Cyax-ares (comp. Daniel 9:1), or
Khsay-arsha, whence Xerxes (comp. Ezra 4:6), early interpreted by Herodotus
(6:98, etc), as meaning ἀρήϊοςaccording to Spiegel (Eranische Altherthumskunde,
II. p377), a mighty man, here does not mean, as in Daniel 9:1, Cyaxares I, the father
of Astyages, as Ferrand holds (Réflexions sur la religion Chrétienne, I, p159), and
Des Vignoles (Chronol. II, p274), and ickes (De Estheræ libro, I, p43–69) would
have it, since they especially insist that, according to Esther 2:5 sq, Mordecai
belonged to the first period of the exile, and that our book nowhere indicates that a
new people had again arisen in Jerusalem. or is the monarch referred to the same
as Astyages, as is asserted in the works referred to in § 5; and still less Artaxerxes,
as Josephus assumes out of regard to the Septuagint version; but he is certainly
Xerxes, as has been well proved by Scaliger (De emend, temp., ed Genev, p 591
sqq.); also by Justi (in Eichhorn’s Repert. XV, p338), and still more emphatically by
Baumgarten (De fide I. Esther, pp122–151, and in his treatises respecting Cyrus the
Great, in the Stud. u. Krit., 1853, p 624 sqq.). On the different views in reference to
Ahasuerus, see especially Feuardent on our book, and Pfeiffer, Dubia vex, p 481
sqq. Against the identification with either Cyaxares or Astyages, are the following

30. facts: (1) Shushan was already the capital of the empire, which it became through
Cyrus (comp. Strabo, XV.); (2) the Persians are now the chief people (comp. the
frequent collection of ‫י‬ַ‫ָד‬‫מ‬‫וּ‬ ‫ם‬ ַ‫ָר‬‫פּ‬e. g., in Esther 1:3); (3) the number seven indicates
that of princes at the court of the king (comp. Esther 1:14); (4) many other
specifically Persian peculiarities. Further, the empire at the time in question
extended from India to Æhiopia, and stretched also to the coasts and isles of the
Mediterranean sea (comp. Esther 1:1; Esther 10:1), as was the case since the time of
Darius Hystaspis. The Jews, moreover, are here represented as scattered over all
parts of the empire (comp. Esther 3:7-8) and particularly numerous in the city of
Shushan (comp. Esther 9:12, etc.). On the contrary Artaxerxes is called in the Bible
(in Ezra and eh.) Artachsharshta or Artachshasta. For Xerxes, on the other hand,
we may claim the identity of names (comp. Ezra 9:6). In his favor is also the
whimsical and tyrannical character manifested by the Ahasuerus of Esther (chap 1
and elsewhere). Besides, there is the remarkable circumstance that Vashti was
rejected in the third year of Ahasuerus, although Esther was not made queen till the
seventh year of his reign, which in the case of Xerxes may be explained on the basis
that between his third and seventh year he made war on Greece.[F 7] The clause
beginning with ‫הוּא‬ (comp. Genesis 2:11) and referring us back—this is Ahasuerus
which reigned from India even unto Ethiopia,etc.—is no doubt intended to
designate Ahasuerus more distinctly,[F 8] but at the same time to make known his
greatness of dominion and power. Thus the danger that threatened the Jews, as well
as the elevation of Esther and Mordecai, and of the Jews through these, is more
powerfully brought out. ‫ֹדּוּ‬ ‫ה‬ stands for the original ‫ְדּוּ‬‫נ‬ֹ ‫,ה‬ as Hidku in the cuneiform
inscriptions of the Persians stands for Hindhu (in Zend and Syrian Hendu), and is
therefore India, in the Sanscrit Sindhu which is really the river Indus, then the
inhabitants along the Indus, and at last the land of the Indus (comp. Lassen,
Judische Altherthumskunde, I, p, 2); so also in the Vedas Sapta Sindhavas, or “the
seven streams,” really stand for India (comp. Rödiger in Gesen. Thesaurus, Append.
p83). The o sound in ‫ֹדּוּ‬ ‫,ה‬ and the tone falling on the first syllable are quite
remarkable, but perhaps only a provincialism. Herodotus testifies to the great
extension of the Persian empire under Xerxes, and in12:9 he rays that Mardonius
reported to Xerxes that the Saccœ and Assyrians, as well as the Indians and
Æthiopians, had been conquered. See also7:97, 98, and8:65, 69, where the
Æthiopians and Indians are enumerated as being under tribute. According to
Arrian, Cyrus extended his conquests up to India, and the people of the Açvaka
were by him made to pay tribute. Darius added still greater parts of northwestern
India to the Persian empire (comp. Duncker, Gesch. d. Altherthums, 3d ed, II,
page468). The auxiliary sentence: A hundred and seven and twenty provinces, is
merely to be regarded as an additional sentence in loose apposition, to indicate what
provinces were included in the region just mentioned. If this sentence depended
upon ‫ְֵך‬‫ל‬ֹ ‫ַמּ‬‫ה‬, it should have ‫ַל‬‫ע‬ [or ְ‫בּ‬] before it. According to Herod. III:89 sqq, Darius
Hyst. on account of the raising of taxes divided the empire into twenty ἀρχαί which
were termed σατραπΐηαι. A further division into lesser portions was not thereby
excluded; with so many petty tribes and peoples this came as a matter of course. So
there were contained in the fifth satrapy (comp. Herod. III:91) a small Jewish
people, a separate ‫ָה‬‫נ‬‫י‬ִ‫ְד‬‫מ‬ which really means a judicial or official circuit (comp. Ezra
2:1). Our127 provinces remind us of the120 Satraps whom Darius the Mede placed

31. over his empire ( Daniel 6:2).
Esther 1:2. In those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat,etc.—Sitting is a posture
common to judges and kings, but more particularly characteristic of the kings of
Persia. The Persian kings are always painted as sitting on a throne under a lofty
canopy. This is true of them even in the time of war, and in their journeys. Xerxes,
indeed, was present in the battles sitting; thus it was at Thermopylœ according to
Herodotus (VII:102), and at Salamis according to Plutarch (Themistocl. 13). See
also Baumgarten, l. c., p85 sqq. Which was in Shushan the palace.—He had a royal
establishment in several cities; but at the time here referred to it was in Shushan,
which was his favorite winter and spring residence (comp. ehemiah 1:1). Æschylus
calls it the palace ornate with gold of the Cissians, and Strabo asserts that every
Persian king built his own palace there. ‫ְכוּת‬‫ל‬ַ‫מ‬ was in use in later language, and
‫ָה‬‫כ‬ָ‫ל‬ְ‫מ‬ַ‫מ‬ in earlier times.
ISBET, "THE BOOK OF ESTHER
‘ ow it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus … that in those days … Esther arose,
and stood before the king, and said, … how can I endure to see the evil that shall
come unto my people? or how can I endure to see the destruction of my kindred?’
Esther 1:1-3; Esther 8:4-6
I. Let us observe the outward stage of these events.—In the books of Ezra and
ehemiah, the Persian court forms, as it were, the background of all the
transactions of the history. Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, figure as the deliverers and
protectors of the returning Israelites. The scene of the book of Esther is laid in
Shushan, or Susa, the capital of Persia. There we see Ahasuerus, ‘the great king,’ as
he was called by the Greeks, the same, it is believed, as Xerxes. These Gentile
monarchs, this Asiatic kingdom, are made to occupy this prominent place in the
Bible in order to remind us that beyond the limits of the chosen people, beyond the
limits of Jewry or of Christendom, there are kingdoms and races of men who claim,
as well as we, a share in the compassion and justice of the all-merciful, all-holy God.
II. That which gives to the book of Esther an enduring spiritual value is the noble,
patriotic spirit of the Jewish race in the presence of the Gentiles amongst whom they
sojourned, that passionate love of country and home, that generous pride in the
independence of their race and creed, which kindled the song of Deborah, which
continued to burn in the hearts of her countrymen and countrywomen after the
lapse of a thousand years, and broke forth in the pathetic wail, in the courageous
defiance, of the Jewish maiden, who, unseduced by the splendours, undaunted by
the terrors, of the Persian court, exclaimed, with the heroic determination, if need
be, to sacrifice her life for her country, ‘If I perish, I perish! How can I endure to see
the evil that shall come unto my people?’
PULPIT, "THE GREAT FEAST OF KI G AHASUERUS AT SUSA, A D THE
DISGRACE OF VASHTI
EXPOSITIO

32. THE GREAT FEAST (Esther 1:1-9). King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) in the third year of
his reign, which was b.c. 484-483, entertained at a great feast in the royal palace of
Susa all his princes and his servants, "the power of Persia and Media," together
with all the nobles and princes of the provinces (Esther 1:2, Esther 1:3). The
hospitality was extended over a space of 180 days (Esther 1:4). At the end of this
time there was a further entertainment for seven days, on even a more profuse scale,
all the male inhabitants of Susa being feasted in the palace gardens (Esther 1:5-8),
while the queen received the women and made them a feast in her own private
apartments. The special occasion of the entertainment seems to have been the
summons to Susa of all the chief men of the kingdom, and particularly of the
satraps, or "princes of provinces," to advise upon the projected expedition against
Greece, which Herodotus mentions in his seventh book (Esther 8:1-17.). Banquets
on an enormous scale were not uncommon in Persia; and the profuseness and
vainglory of Xerxes would naturally lead him to go to an extreme in this, as in other
matters.
Esther 1:1
In the days of Ahasuerus. Ahasuerus, in the original Akhashverosh, corresponds to
Khshayarsha (the Persian name from which the Greeks formed their Xerxes) almost
as closely as possible. The prosthelic a was a necessity of Hebrew articulation. The
only unnecessary change was the substitution of v for y (vau for yod) in the
penultimate syllable. But this interchange is very common in Hebrew. This is
Ahasuerus which reigned, etc. The writer is evidently acquainted with more than a
single Ahasuerus. Ezra had mentioned one (Ezra 4:6), and Daniel another (Daniel
9:1). If he knew their works, he would necessarily know of these two. Or he may
have known of them independently. The Ahasuerus of his narrative being different
from either, he proceeds to distinguish him
Cambyses (see comment on Ezra 4:6) had not ruled over India. India is expressed by
Hoddu, which seems formed from the Persian Hidush (' akhsh-i-Rus-tam Inser.,'
par. 3, 1. 25), by the omission of the nominatival ending, and a slight modification of
the vocalisation. The Sanscrit and the Zend, like the Greek, retained the n, which is
really an essential part of the native word. Ethiopia is expressed, as usual, by Cush.
The two countries are well chosen as the extreme terminal of the Persian empire. An
hundred and twenty-seven provinces. The Hebrew medinah, "province," does not
correspond to the Persian satrapy, but is applied to every tract which had its own
governor. There were originally no more than twenty satrapies (Herod; 3:89-94),
but there was certainly a very much larger number of governments. Judaea was a
medinah (Ezra 2:1; ehemiah 11:3), though only a small part of the satrapy of
Syria.
BI 1-4, "Now it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus (this is Ahasuerus which
reigned, from India even unto Ethiopia).
Artaxerxes

33. By almost universal acknowledgment now, the sovereign here referred to is Artaxerxes,
surnamed Longimanus, or the long.handed; the term Ahasuerus being, like that of
Pharaoh, expressive of the kingly dignity, and not the name of an individual. In his time
the Persian empire was of vast extent, comprehending all the countries from the river
Indus on the east to the Mediterranean on the west, and from the Black Sea and the
Caspian in the north to the extreme south of Arabia, then called Ethiopia. (A. B.
Davidson, D. D.)
God liberal to sinners
What rich gifts hath God often bestowed on men who know Him not! Think not,
however, that God is more liberal to His enemies than to His friends. Some of the vilest
of men possessed all the great and large dominions of the Persian empire. But if God has
bestowed on you the least measure of true faith, of unfeigned love, of unaffected
humility, He hath bestowed on you treasures of inestimably greater value than all the
possessions of Artaxerxes Longimanus or of Nero. (G. Lawson, D. D.)
Prosperity cursed
A curse is mingled with all the prosperity of sinners, because they know not how to use
or to enjoy, but are disposed, by their corrupt tempers, to abuse everything which they
possess. (G. Lawson, D. D.)
A great want in the soul of man
There is a want in the soul of man which all the wealth of one hundred and twenty-seven
provinces cannot supply. There is a want which the best social arrangements cannot
supply. There is a craving in the heart of man beyond all creature power to satisfy. Guilty
man needs to be placed in a right relation toward God. Money cannot purchase for him
peace and pardon. Artaxerxes was as poor as the humblest serf in his dominions in this
respect, and far poorer than the poorest of the children of Judah, dispersed through his
empire as exiles, but knowing Jehovah. (A. B. Davidson, D. D.)
Character of Ahasuerus
First to come before us in the story is the king, Ahssuerus, more familiar to us as Xerxes.
Cruel, passionate, capricious, his character as set forth in contemporary history is wholly
in keeping with all that we see of him here. This is the man who was hospitably
entertained by Pythias of Lydia when on his way to Greece, and helped by an enormous
contribution; but when the old man, who had given all his other sons to the service of
the king, pleaded that the eldest might stay with him, Herodotus tells us that Xerxes in a
fury commanded that the son should be slain, and he made his whole army pass between
the severed body. Of him it is told how that when a storm destroyed the bridge by which
he would cross into Greece, he commanded the engineers to be slain, and then had the
sea beaten with chains to subdue it into better manners. He comes near to us by his
association with the famous Greek heroes. Marching in his pride with a host of five
millions, with which he would subdue the world, he is stayed by three hundred Spartans,

34. whilst his vast fleet is destroyed by the skill and courage of the Greeks at Salamis, a
victory that secured the deliverance of Europe from Oriental despotism, and preserved
for us the literature and art which have uplifted and beautified our civilisation. (Mark
Guy Pearse.)
Which was in Shushan the palace.
The palace at Shushan
is presented before us. Shushan was the metropolis of Persia, a magnificent city of about
fifteen miles circumference, and the residence of the kings. In winter the climate was
very mild, but in summer the heat was so excessive that an old writer says the very
lizards and serpents were consumed by it on the streets. It was probably on this account
that the seat of government was at Ecbatana in summer, and only in winter at Shushan.
(T. McEwan.)
2 At that time King Xerxes reigned from his royal
throne in the citadel of Susa,
CLARKE, "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 τᇽ πολει, as
in the Septuagint.
GILL, "That in those days, when the King Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his
kingdom,.... Not only was placed upon it, but settled in it; after Xerxes had subdued
Egypt, in the second year of his reign (e), and enjoyed great peace and tranquillity:
which was in Shushan the palace; that is, the throne of his kingdom was in
Shushan, the royal city of the kings of Persia; of which see Gill on Neh_1:1, Dan_8:2.

35. K&D, "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. ‫ת‬ ֶ‫ב‬ ֶ‫שׁ‬ 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.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:2 [That] in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the
throne of his kingdom, which [was] in Shushan the palace,
Ver. 2. When the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne] Having peace with all men,
being quiet and secure; though this lasted not long; for he was shamefully foiled by
the Grecians (against whom he led an army of two millions of men), and forced to
flee back again over Hellespont, in a poor fisher’s boat; which being overloaded,
had sunk all, if the Persians by the casting away of themselves had not saved the life
of their king. Omnia sunt hominum tenui pendentia filo, &c.
Which was in Shushan the palace] See ehemiah 1:1. Ptolemy, Strabo, and Pliny tell
us, that in this city (situated upon the river Choaspes) was that famous palace of
Cyrus, which was adorned with marble walls, golden pillars, and a great store of
precious stones; shining as so many stars from the roof and sides of it, to the
dazzling of the eyes of the beholders (Ptol. 1. 6, c. 3; Strab. lib. 15; Plin. 1. 6, c. 27;
Herod. 1. 5; Athen. 1. 12, c. 3). Here it was, likely, that the kings of Persia sat to hear
causes under a vine of gold, set with smaragds, as with so many clusters of grapes.
BE SO , "Esther 1:2. When Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom — Was
settled in the quiet possession of it, enjoying peace and tranquillity throughout his
large dominions; which was in Shushan the palace — “Which, after the conquest of
the Medes, was made by Cyrus, and the rest of the Persian kings, the royal seat, that
they might not be too far from Babylon. It stood upon the river Ulai, and was a
place of such renown, that Strabo calls it, “a city most worthy to be praised,”
informing us, that the whole country about it was amazingly fruitful, producing a
hundred and sometimes two hundred fold. Darius Hystaspes enlarged and
beautified it with a most magnificent palace, which Aristotle calls “a wonderful
royal palace, shining with gold, amber, and ivory.” — Dodd. See Prideaux, and
Calmet’s Dict. on the word Shushan.
WHEDO , "2. Sat on the throne of his kingdom — That is, was quietly and firmly
settled in his dominions; an oriental mode of representing an absolute monarch in
possession of royal authority and power. The Asiatic kings are thus represented on

36. the monuments, and Xerxes is said to have watched the battles of Thermopylae and
Salamis while seated on a throne.
Shushan the palace — See note on ehemiah 1:1.
COKE, "Esther 1:2. When the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne— That is, enjoying
peace and tranquillity through his large dominions; for the history of his accession
to the throne is this: Xexres, his father, was privately murdered by Artabanes,
captain of his guard. He coming to him, who was then but the third son, made him
believe that Darius, his eldest brother, had done it to make his way to the throne,
and that he had a design likewise to cut him off to make himself secure in it.
Ahasuerus, believing this, went immediately to his brother's apartment, and with
the assistance of Artabanes and his guards slew him; thinking all the while that he
acted but in his own defence. The drift of Artabanes was, to seize on the throne
himself; but for the present he took Ahasuerus and placed him thereon, with a
design to pull him down as soon as matters were ripe for his own ascent; but when
Ahasuerus understood this from Megabysus, who had married one of his sisters, he
took care to counter-plot Artabanes, and to cut off him and his whole party before
his treason came to maturity; and for this, very probably, and some other successes
against his brother Hystaspes, which settled him in an agreeable possession of the
whole Persian empire, it was, that a festival season of above one hundred and
fourscore days' continuance was appointed, which even to the present time,
according to some travellers, is no uncommon thing in those parts of the world. This
feast was held at Shushan, which, after the conquest of the Medes, was made by
Cyrus and the rest of the Persian kings the royal seat, that they might not be too far
from Babylon. It stood upon the river Ulai, and was a place of such renown, that
Strabo calls it "a city most worthy to be praised," informing us, that the whole
country about it was amazingly fruitful, producing a hundred, and sometimes two
hundred fold. Darius Hystaspes enlarged and beautified it with a most magnificent
palace; which Aristotle calls "a wonderful royal palace, shining with gold, amber,
and ivory." It will not be altogether foreign to our purpose, just to remark from Dr.
Lightfoot, that the outer gate of the eastern wall of the temple was called the gate of
Shushan, and had the figure of that city carved on it, in honour of the decree which
Darius granted at that palace for the rebuilding of Jerusalem.
PULPIT, "The throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan. Though the Persian
court resided a part of the year at Ecbatana, and occasionally visited Persepolis and
Babylon (Xen; 'Cyrop.,' 8.6, § 2; 'Anab.,' 3.5, § 15), yet Susa was decidedly the
ordinary seat of government, and ranked as the capital of the empire. "Shushan the
palace" is distinguished from Shushan the city (Esther 9:12-15), the one occupying a
lofty but artificial eminence towards the west, while the other lay at the base of this
mound, stretching out a considerable distance towards the east.

37. 3 and in the third year of his reign he gave a
banquet for all his nobles and officials. The
military leaders of Persia and Media, the princes,
and the nobles of the provinces were present.
BAR ES, "In the third year - In this year, 483 B.C., Xerxes assembled the
governors of provinces at Susa, in connection with his contemplated expedition against
Greece.
The nobles - literally, “the first men.” The Hebrew word used is one adopted from
the Persian.
GILL, "In the third year of his reign he made a feast unto all his princes,
and his servants,.... The nobles and officers in his court; on what account this was
cannot be said with certainty, whether the first day of it was his birthday, or the day of
his coming to the throne, on which day Xerxes used to make a feast annually, as
Herodotus relates (f):
the power of Persia and Media; the mighty men therein, the potentates thereof; or
the "army", the principal officers of it:
the nobles and princes of the provinces being with him. The first word Aben
Ezra declares his ignorance of, whether it is Hebrew or Persian; Jarchi interprets it
governors; and the persons intended by both seem to be the deputy governors of the one
hundred and twenty seven provinces who were present at this feast. Xerxes, having
reduced Egypt, meditated a war with Greece, to which he was pressed by Mardonius, a
relation of his; upon which he summoned the chief men of his kingdom, to have their
advice about it (g), which perhaps was taken at this time; for it was in the third year of
his reign he resolved upon the war, and began to make preparations for it; and it was
usual, at banquets and feasts, that the Persians debated their most important affairs (h).
JAMISO , "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

38. 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].
K&D, "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.” ‫ה‬ ֶ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ ָ‫,ע‬ 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 ‫יל‬ ֵ‫ח‬ ‫.פ‬ We might supply ְ‫ל‬ before ‫יל‬ ֵ‫ח‬ from the preceding words,
(viz.) the forces, etc.; but this would not suit the ‫יו‬ָ‫נ‬ ָ‫פ‬ ְ‫ל‬ at the end of the verse. For this
word shows that an independent circumstantial clause begins with ‫יל‬ ֵ‫,ח‬ 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 ‫יל‬ ֵ‫,ח‬ 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 ‫ל‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ח‬ 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 ‫ל‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ח‬ without ‫ּל‬ⅴ 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 ‫ס‬ ַ‫ר‬ ָ , 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.
ELLICOTT, "(3) In the third year of his reign.—Assuming, as we do, the identity of
Ahasuerus and Xerxes, this will be 483 B.C., when Xerxes held a meeting at Susa of
his princes to make arrangements for invading Greece. At so important a gathering,
the feasting was a very obvious adjunct; and besides the coming campaign, a
successful war had just been concluded in Egypt, and rejoicings for the past might
have mingled with high hopes for the future, when the whole strength of the empire
should be put forth to crush the presumptuous foe who had dared to measure
swords with the “king of kings.”
obles.—The word in the Hebrew, partemim, occurring here, in Esther 6:9. and
Daniel 1:3. is a Persian word, literally meaning “first.” The Greek protos and Latin
primus are evidently akin to it.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:3 In the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his

39. princes and his servants; the power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of
the provinces, [being] before him:
Ver. 3. In the third year of his reign 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 greatness
of preparation, or the continuance of time; yet it had an end. But so hath not the
feast of a good conscience, Proverbs 15:15. {See Trapp on "Proverbs 15:15"}
Unto all his princes and his servants] To gratify them for their former valour and
victory; and to inflame 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, παραταµοπις, of which the word Parthemim is made, as some
think. Others derive it of Perath, quasi principes Euphrataei, the princes that were
beyond the river Euphrates (Kimchi Arias.).
BE SO , "Esther 1:3. Made a feast unto all his princes and his servants — By his
servants are meant his subjects, who were called servants in the eastern countries.
And it was the manner of the Roman emperors, sometimes to feast all the people of
Rome, as well as the senate. The power of Persia and Media — 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. What the occasion
of this feast was, is variously conjectured. Some think it was begun on his birth-day;
but the next words seem to inform us, that it was to show his magnificent greatness
to all his subjects; for in those countries they delighted much in making great feasts,
as we read afterward that Alexander, when he was there, entertained four hundred
captains, or great commanders, who all sat in silver chairs, &c.
WHEDO , "3. The third year of his reign — This coincides with the time just after
his reduction of Egypt, when, according to Herodotus, (vii, 7, 8,) Xerxes convoked a
great assembly of the principal Persians, the chiefs of the empire, to deliberate on
his expedition against Greece. This coincidence is no light argument for identifying
Ahasuerus with Xerxes.
Made a feast — Among the Persians and other oriental nations it was a custom for
kings and generals to give a grand banquet after a victory, or upon a great state
occasion. So in the Book of Judith, (i, 16,) ebuchadnezzar returns from a great
victory and feasts his army one hundred and twenty days. So Cyrus feasted the
Persians when he wished to unite them in revolt from the power of Media. (Herod.,
1:126.) Belshazzar feasted a thousand nobles, (Daniel 5:1,) and, according to

40. Quintus Curtius, ten thousand men were present at one of Alexander’s festivals.
All his princes and his servants — That is, all the rulers of the one hundred and
twenty-seven provinces, and other officers, civil and military, who held positions of
honour and power under the king. These are further defined as the power of Persia
and Media, the elite of the empire, as represented in the nobles and princes of the
provinces. The nobles were of a rank superior to the princes, or rulers of provinces.
They were, next to the king, the great magnates of the empire, the first men of the
nation. The word rendered nobles, ( ‫),פרתמים‬ is of Persian origin, and signifies first.
o ordinary occasion was this great banquet of Ahasuerus, when before him were
assembled these representatives of his power. The repeated mention in this chapter
(comp. Esther 1:14; Esther 1:18-19) of Persia and Media, always naming Persia
first, shows that at the time of this feast Persia had supremacy over the Medes.
Compare the opposite usage in Daniel 5:28; Daniel 6:8; Daniel 12:13; Daniel 8:20;
when the Median power was yet in the ascendency.
LA GE, "Esther 1:3. In the third year of his reign he made a feast,etc.—All his
princes and servants, for whom this feast was made, are specified as follows : The
power of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces (being) before
him.—These words form an explanatory sentence, and assert distinctly that all the
princes and servants were really gathered around Xerxes. We are to understand by
the “power,” the representatives of the same, who probably consisted of the body-
guard of the king, which formed the flower of the entire army-power. According to
Herod. VII:40 sqq, this was in itself sufficiently large, and consisted of two thousand
picked horsemen, two thousand lancers, and ten thousand common foot-soldiers.
The ‫ים‬ִ‫מ‬ְ‫תּ‬ ְ‫ַר‬‫פּ‬ who are mentioned also in chap. Esther 6:9, and Daniel 1:3, were the
principes, chief men (in Sanscrit we find it parthama = “first;” in the Behistun
Inscription fratama, in Pehlevi pardom), i.e., the magnates. [“It is a superlative from
a root fra, equivalent to the Greek πρό, “before.”—Rawlinson]. The princes of the
provinces are the Pashas or governors of those one hundred and twenty-seven
provinces. That ‫ם‬ ַ‫ָר‬‫פּ‬ is more correct than ‫ם‬ ָ‫ָר‬‫פּ‬ has been mentioned in the note on Ezra
1:1.
PULPIT, "In the third year of his reign. In b.c. 483, probably in the early spring,
when the court, having spent the winter at Babylon (Xenophon), returned to Susa to
enjoy the most charming season of the year. He made a feast unto all his princes and
his servants. Persian kings, according to Ctesias and Duris, ordinarily entertained at
their table 15,000 persons! This is of course an exaggeration; but there can be no
doubt that their hospitality was on a scale unexampled in modern times. The vast
pillared halls of the Persepelitan and Susan palaces could accommodate many
hundreds, if not thousands. The power of Persia and Media. The empire of the
Achaemenian kings was Perso-Medic rather than simply Persian. The Medes were
not only the most favoured of the conquered nations, but were really placed nearly
on a par with their conquerors. Many of the highest offices were conferred on them,
and they formed no doubt a considerable section of the courtiers. The nobles.
Literally, "the first men," ha-partemim. The word used is a Persian term Hebraised.
It occurs only in this place. And princes of the provinces. i.e. satraps. The presence

41. of such persons at the great gathering at Susa preparatory to the Grecian war is
witnessed to by Herodotus (7:19).
4 For a full 180 days he displayed the vast wealth
of his kingdom and the splendor and glory of his
majesty.
CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "When he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom,.... Xerxes was the
fourth king of the Persian monarchy, and was "far richer than all" that went before him,
all their riches coming into his hands, Dan_11:2, and now that prophecy began to be
fulfilled, "that by his strength, through his riches, he should stir up all against the realm
of Grecia"; which he began to do in the third year of his reign, and for which these his
nobles might be called together, as to have their advice, so to animate them to come in
the more readily into the expedition, by showing them the riches he was possessed of;
for to none of the kings of Persia does this largeness of riches better belong than to
Xerxes:
and the honour of his excellent majesty; the grandeur he lived in, the pomp and
splendour of his court; he was the most grand and magnificent of all the kings of the

42. Medes and Persians (i):
and this he did many days, even an hundred and fourscore days; to which
seven more being added, as in the following verse, it made one hundred and eighty
seven, the space of full six months; though some think the feast did not last so long, only
seven days, and that the one hundred and eighty days were spent in preparing for it; but
the Persian feasts were very long, large, and sumptuous. Dr. Frye (k) says, this custom of
keeping an annual feast one hundred and eighty days still continues in Persia. Cheus (l),
a Chinese emperor, used frequently to make a feast which lasted one hundred and
twenty days; though it cannot be well thought that the same individual persons here
were feasted so long, but, when one company was sufficiently treated, they removed and
made way for another; and so it continued successively such a number of days as here
related, which was six months, or half a year; a year then in use consisting of three
hundred and sixty days, as was common with the Jews, and other nations, and so the
Persians (m).
HE RY 4-6, "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, Est_
1:4. 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 (Ezr_6:8, Ezr_7:22), 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, Est_1:3, Est_1:4. 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, Est_1:5. 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, Est_1:6. 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.
K&D 4-6, "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

43. 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 ‫ּו‬‫ת‬ּ‫א‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫ה‬ ְ with ‫ה‬ ֶ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ ָ‫ע‬ 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. ‫ן‬ ַ‫שׁוּשׁ‬ ְ ‫ים‬ ִ‫א‬ ְ‫צ‬ ְ‫מ‬ִ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ם‬ ָ‫ע‬ ָ‫ל־ה‬ ָⅴ does not signify “all the inhabitants of Susa,” but all
then present, i.e., then assembled in the citadel of Susa. ‫ים‬ ִ‫א‬ ְ‫צ‬ ְ‫מ‬ִ ַ‫ה‬ 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 ‫ם‬ ָ‫ע‬ ָ‫ה‬ 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. ‫ן‬ ָ‫ט‬ ָ‫ק‬ ‫ד‬ ַ‫ע‬ְ‫ו‬ ‫ּול‬‫ד‬ָ ִ‫מ‬ ְ‫,ל‬
moreover, does not mean old and young, but high and low, the greater and lesser
servants (‫ים‬ ִ‫ד‬ ָ‫ב‬ ֲ‫)ע‬ 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 ‫ּו‬‫ת‬ּ‫א‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫ה‬ ְ 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 ‫ה‬ ֶ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫מ‬ which the king, according to Est_1:3,
gave to his ‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ and ‫ים‬ ִ‫ד‬ ָ‫ב‬ ֲ‫,ע‬ 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,

44. 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 ‫ה‬ ֶ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫מ‬ 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. ‫ן‬ ָ‫ית‬ ִ is a later form of ‫ת‬ִ‫י‬ ַ , which occurs only here and Est_7:7-8. ‫ר‬ ֵ‫צ‬ ָ‫,ח‬ 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 ‫ר‬ַ‫ו‬ ָ‫ח‬ 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. ‫ס‬ ַ ְ‫ר‬ ַⅴ, 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. ‫ת‬ ֶ‫ל‬ ֵ‫כ‬ ְ , 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 (‫חוּז‬ፎ) with cords of white byssus and
purple to rings and pillars of white marble. ‫ּות‬ ִ‫,מ‬ 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. ‫ט‬ ַ‫ה‬ ַ , in Arabic a mock stone, in lxx
σµαραγδίτης, a spurious emerald, i.e., a green-coloured stone resembling the emerald,
probably malachite or serpentine. ‫שׁ‬ ֵ‫שׁ‬ is white marble; ‫ר‬ ַ , Arabic darrun, darratun, pearl,
lxx πίννινος λίθος, a pearl-like stone, perhaps mother-of-pearl. ‫ת‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ּח‬‫ס‬, a kind of dark-
coloured stone (from ‫ר‬ ַ‫ח‬ ָ‫ס‬ = ‫ר‬ ַ‫ח‬ ָ‫,שׁ‬ to be dark), black, black marble with shield-like spots
(all three words occur only here).

45. ELLICOTT, "(4) An hundred and fourscore days.—As a period of mere feasting,
this long time (half a year) is simply incredible, but we must understand it as a time
during which troops were collected, and the plan of invasion settled.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:4 When he shewed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the
honour of his excellent majesty many days, [even] an hundred and fourscore days.
Ver. 4. When he shewed the riches of his glorious kingdom] Or, that he might show,
&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, abusing
God’s 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 exactors had
received no less sums of curses than of coin. O curas hominum! O quantum est in
rebus inane! O the concerns of men, O how great it is in vain things.
And the honour of his excellent majesty] Atqui virtute, non vanitate acquirenda est
gloria, saith the orator, glory is to be gotten by virtue, and not by these like vanities,
Hezekiah smarted for his folly in this kind; ebuchadnezzar much more. This great
potentate was shortly after brought low enough.
Desinat elatis quisquam confidere rebus;
Magna repente ruunt, summa cadunt subito (Claudian).
Let him cease from burying whoever is to divided by things, They suddenly destroy
great things, the greatest things perish suddenly.
Many days, even an hundred and fourscore days] A hundred, fourscore, and five
days, 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 days
expired; and that then both prince and people were feasted together seven days. Of
the Sybarites indeed we read, that when they made great feasts, they invited their
women twelve months before, that they might come the more richly and luxuriously
attired, and might be the more sumptuously entertained. But the text plainly shows
that Lyra here did delirare, is crazy, miss the meaning; for after that, the princes,
from sundry parts, had been half a year in feasting.
BE SO , "Esther 1:4. Many days, even a 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.
WHEDO , "4. When he showed — Literally, in his showing; that is, while he

46. showed or descanted on his wealth and power. The riches of his glorious kingdom
and the honour of his excellent majesty are not to be understood of the wealth and
magnificence displayed at the royal banquet, but rather the extent and vast
resources of his empire, as exhibited by the number and dignity of his guests. If his
object in assembling these great officers of his realm was to deliberate on the
invasion of Greece, we see a reason for this showing of his vast wealth and power.
He would thus convince his princes of his abundant ability to conquer Greece.
A hundred and fourscore days — We are not to understand, as some have done,
that the royal feast continued all these six months. The great banquet was given, as
the next verse shows, after these days had expired. But many a feast of less note
might have been held during the one hundred and eighty days. Ctesias relates that
the king of Persia furnished provisions daily for twenty-five thousand men. We need
not suppose, however, that all the princes of the empire were absent from their
homes and entertained for six months at Shushan; but rather, as Rawlinson
suggests, “we may conclude that the time was extended in order to allow of the
different persons making their appearance at the court successively.” Xerxes is said
to have been four years in mustering his forces and making preparations for his
expedition against the Greeks, (Herod., 7:20,) and he might well have spent the half
of one year in consulting with his nobles, forming plans, and estimating the
character and extent of his resources.
LA GE, "Esther 1:4. When he shewed the riches of his glorious kingdom,etc.—Keil
connects these words with the inserted explanatory sentence, “the power—before
him,” and thus he gets the sense, not that the feast itself, at which Xerxes showed his
riches, lasted one hundred and eighty days, but that he prepared a feast for the
army lasting seven days, after they had viewed his riches for one hundred and
eighty days ( Esther 1:5). But the connection of our verse with the main assertion in
Esther 1:3 : “He made a feast” is much closer; as may be seen in the fact that nearly
all exegetes have declared themselves for this rendering. Something again different
seems to be meant in the seven days’ feast of Esther 1:5, which Xerxes had caused to
be made, not for the army, but for all the people in Shushan the palace. The feast
during a hundred and eighty days may have been only for the purpose of
consultation, and the real feast may have followed in the seven days succeeding.
Keil’s objection, that then the mention of the preceding feast of a hundred and
eighty days was purposeless, does not hold, since the fact that Xerxes could entertain
his princes and servants so long, is a proof also to the reader of his great riches.
That such magnificent, long and great feasts were very popular at the Persian court,
is elsewhere stated (comp. Duncker, as above, p609 sqq.). Herod. vii8 informs us
that after the Revelation -subjection of Egypt, Xerxes called the magnates of his
empire to Shushan, in order to consult with them in reference to the campaign
against Greece; and in Esther 7:2, he further states that the preparations for this
undertaking lasted four years. Hence the assumption is not unfounded that in these
long assemblages it was specially designed in the third year to counsel together
regarding the war with Greece. This is the more evident since in the inserted clause
of Esther 1:3 the power of the Medes and Persians is prominently stated. If Xerxes
ascended the throne in the year B. C486 then there were still three or four years

47. until this happened. There were three years until the battle of Salamis (480)
beginning with his first year of empire. Clericus asserts that these princes of the
provinces could not possibly have remained away so long a time as a hundred and
eighty days from their provinces and governmental activity. Hence he would have
them entertained one after the other; a view which is without foundation. They
doubtless had subordinate officers, who ranked high enough to take their places for
one half year.[F 9]
PULPIT, "When he showed the riches. Ostentation was a main feature in the
character of Xerxes. The huge army with which he invaded Greece was more for
display than for service. Vain parade is apparent at every step of his expedition
(Herod; 7.31, 40, 41, 44, 59, etc.). He now exhibits "the riches of his kingdom" to his
nobles and chief officers, showing them doubtless all the splendours of the palace,
the walls draped with gold (AEschyl; 'Pers.,' 50.161), the marble pillars and rich
hangings, the golden plane tree and the golden vine (Herod; 7.27), and perhaps the
ingots of gold wherewith Darius had filled the treasury (ibid. 3.96). An hundred and
fourscore days. We need not suppose that the same persons were enter. tained
during the whole of this period. All the provincial governors could not quit their
provinces at the same time, nor could any of them remain away very long. There
was no doubt a succession of guests during the six months that the entertainment
lasted.
5 When these days were over, the king gave a
banquet, lasting seven days, in the enclosed
garden of the king’s palace, for all the people
from the least to the greatest who were in the
citadel of Susa.
BAR ES, "Feasts on this extensive scale were not unusual in the East. Cyrus is said
on one occasion to have feasted “all the Persians.” Even ordinarily, the later Persian
monarchs entertained 15,000 persons at their table.

48. CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "And when these days were ended,.... The one hundred and eighty, in which
the nobles, princes, and great men of the kingdom were feasted:
the king made a feast unto all the people that were present in Shushan the
palace, both unto great and small; of every age, rank, state and condition of life;
these were the common people, whether inhabitants of the city or country people there
on business, whether natives or foreigners; according to the Targum, there were
Israelites there, but not Mordecai and his family; yea, it is said in the Midrash (n), that
they were all Jews, and that their number was 18,500; but this is not probable; it is very
likely there were some Jews among them, as there were many in the army of Xerxes,
when he made his expedition into Greece, according to the poet Choerilus (o); which is
not to be wondered at, since there were so many of them in his dominions, and they men
of valour and fidelity, and to whose nation he was so kind and favourable: and this feast
was kept
seven days in the court of the garden of the king's palace; which no doubt was
very large, and sufficient to hold such a number as was assembled together on this
occasion, when there was not room enough for them in the palace. There is in history an
account of a Persian king that supped with 15,000 men, and in the supper spent forty
talents (p).
TRAPP, "Esther 1:5 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;
Ver. 5. The king made a feast unto all the people] This was not amiss, so that care
were taken that no irregulares gulares unsatisfied appitites, were found among
them; for kings should carry themselves toward their people as kindly as parents do
toward their children, and shepherds toward their sheep. Are they not therefore
called patres patriae, fathers of their country, and shepherds of their people?
ποιµενες λαων. David and Cyrus were taken from the sheepfolds to feed men,
Psalms 78:70.
Both unto great and small] Pell-mell, one with another, to show his liberality; which
yet he might better have bestowed in another away, than in belly cheer, and such
open housekeeping to all comers without difference; since this is rather prodigality
than bounty.
Seven days] Too long together to be a feasting; since at such times men are so apt to

49. exceed and lash out; eating that on earth that they must digest in hell; and drowning
both bodies and souls in wine and strong drink, as Richard III did his brother
Clarence in a butt {A cask for wine or ale, of capacity varying from 108 to 140
gallons.} of Malmsey.
In the court of the garden] In the banqueting house, or sub dio, in the open air in
the garden, where they had elbow room, and all manner of delights, fit to have been
seasoned and allayed with the sight of a sepulchre (the Jews built their tombs
beforehand in their gardens), or else of a death’s head (as was the manner of the
Egyptians at their great feasts), to keep them from surfeiting.
BE SO , "Esther 1:5. Made a feast unto all the people in Shushan — ot only to
the inhabitants of Shushan, but to all that were then present in the city out of all
parts of his dominions. In the court of the garden of the king’s palace — In the
entrance of the royal palace. The Persian gardens were exceedingly large and
pleasant.
WHEDO , "5. When these days were expired — That is, at the end of the one
hundred and eighty days.
Unto all the people that were present in Shushan — Literally, as the margin, all that
were found at Shushan. Probably not all the princes of the empire were to be found
at the palace at the same time, but such of them as were found there at the time
indicated were honoured with this magnificent banquet. But this feast was not for
the princes only, but for all the people, irrespective of rank, for the writer is careful
to say that it was made both unto great and small. Some have supposed two
banquets, one lasting one hundred and eighty, and the other seven days, the former
for the princes and nobles, the latter for the inhabitants of Shushan. But this
supposition is unnecessary. o doubt the one hundred and eighty days, as remarked
above, were enlivened by many a feast, at which only nobles and princes were
present; but this grand feast, which lasted seven days, was an occasion of general
revelry, in which princes and people alike participated.
The court of the garden of the king’s palace — Oriental palaces had a park or
garden connected with them, adorned with trees and fountains. The court of such
garden was either the great hall that opened immediately upon it or the garden
itself. Loftus identifies this court with the great colonnade, of which we have given a
cut on page 436. He remarks: “It stands on an elevation in the centre 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 that the expression ‘Shushan the palace,’ applies especially to this
portion of the existing ruins in contradistinction to the citadel and the city of
Shushan.” But according to Fergusson, “the feast took place, not in the interior of
any hall, but out of doors, in tents erected in one of the courts of the palace, such as

50. we may easily fancy existed in front of either the eastern or western porches of the
great central building.” Comp. note on Esther 5:1.
LA GE, "Esther 1:5. And when these days were expired, the king made a feast to
all the people.—This does not, as Keil would have it, take up the third verse again,
but forms the transition from the counseling to the purely festive entertainment to
which the king invited (in addition to those already assembled to the army and great
rulers, comp. Esther 1:11) all the people at Shushan the palace. ‫לוֹאת‬ְ‫מ‬ is not an
abstract form with an infinitive signification, which would properly have to be
punctuated thus ‫ת‬ֶ‫לוֹא‬ְ‫מ‬, as are ‫ת‬ ֶ‫ְבשׁ‬‫י‬,‫ֶת‬‫ב‬ֹ ‫כ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ (comp. Ewald, § 239 a), but the ‫ו‬ stands in
the wrong place in the originally defectively written ‫ֹלאת‬ְ‫מ‬ (comp. Leviticus 12:6), in
order that it might be known as having been added later (comp. John 20:22).—To
all these people who were invited, belonged also the lower classes of servants, and
probably the common inhabitants likewise, as is evinced by the phrase both unto
great and small—from the highest to the lowest. But these were only the male
population, as is shown in Esther 1:9. In reference to ‫ים‬ִ‫ְא‬‫צ‬ְ‫מ‬ִ‫נּ‬ַ‫ה‬ comp. the note on Ezra
8:25. ‫ָדוֹל‬‫גּ‬ִ‫מ‬ְ‫ל‬, with ְ‫ל‬, as in 2 Chronicles 15:13; without it 1 Samuel 30:19.—In the
court of the garden of the king’s palace.—‫ו‬ָ‫ִית‬‫בּ‬ for ִ‫ַית‬‫בּ‬occurs often in our book, but is
found connected with ‫ַת‬‫נּ‬ִ‫גּ‬ as also in Esther 7:7. The kingly palace or series of houses
was situated, in Oriental manner, as is customary also to-day, in a large park
(Xenoph. Cyrop. I:3, 12, 14).
PULPIT, "A feast unto all the people that were found in Susa. The males only are
intended, as appears from verse 9. So Cyrus on one occasion feasted "the entire
Persian army," slaughtering for them all his father's flocks, sheep, goats, and oxen
(Herod; 1.126). In the court of the garden. The "court of the garden" is probably
the entire space surrounding the central hall of thirty-six pillars at Susa, including
the three detached porticoes of twelve pillars each, described by Mr. Loftus in his
'Chaldaea and Susiana'. This is a space nearly 350 feet long by 250 wide, with a
square of 145 feet taken out of it for the central building. The area exceeds 60,000
square feet.
6 The garden had hangings of white and blue
linen, fastened with cords of white linen and
purple material to silver rings on marble pillars.
There were couches of gold and silver on a mosaic
pavement of porphyry, marble, mother-of-pearl

51. and other costly stones.
BAR ES, "Rather, “where was an awning of fine white cotton and violet.” White and
blue (or violet) were the royal colors in Persia. Such awnings as are here described were
very suitable to the pillared halls and porches of a Persian summer-palace, and especially
to the situation of that of Susa.
The beds - Rather, “couches” or “sofas,” on which the guests reclined at meals.
A pavement ... - See the margin. It is generally agreed that the four substances
named are stones; but to identify the stones, or even their colors, is difficult.
CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "Where were white, green, and blue hangings,.... Or curtains of fine linen,
as the Targum, which were of these several colours; the first letter of the word for
"white" is larger than usual, to denote the exceeding whiteness of them. The next word is
"carpas", which Ben Melech observes is a dyed colour, said to be green. Pausanias (q)
makes mention of Carpasian linen, and which may be here meant; the last word used
signifies blue, sky coloured, or hyacinth:
fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings, and pillars of
marble; these pillars are said, in the Targum, to be of divers colours, red, green, and
shining yellow and white, on which the silver rings were fixed, and into them were put
linen strings of purple colour, which fastened the hangings to them, and so made an
enclosure, within which the guests sat at the feast:
the beds were of gold and silver; the couches on which they sat, or rather reclined
at eating, as was the manner of the eastern nations; these, according to the Targum,
were of lambs' wool, the finest, and the softest, and the posts of them were of gold, and
their feet of silver. Such luxury obtained among the Romans in later times (r):
these were placed in a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black,
marble; which, according to some, are the porphyrite, Parian, alabaster, and marble of
various colours; the marble of the Persians is of four colours, white, black, red and black,
and white and black (s); but others take them to be precious stones, as Jarchi and Aben

52. Ezra; the first is by the Targum interpreted crystal, by others the emerald, one of which
Theophrastus (t) speaks of as four cubits long, and three broad, which might be laid in a
pavement; the third is, by Bochart (u), supposed to be the pearl; and in the Talmud (w)
it is said to be of such a nature, that if placed in the middle of a dining room, will give
light in it as at noonday, which seems to be what is called lychnites; to which Lucian (x)
ascribes a like property: nor need all this seem strange, since great was the luxury of the
eastern nations. Philostratus (y) speaks of a temple in India paved with pearls, and
which he says all the Barbarians use in their temples; particularly it is said (z), that the
roofs of the palaces of Shushan and Ecbatana, the palaces of the kings of Persia, shone
with gold and silver, ivory, and amber; no wonder then that their pavements were of
very valuable and precious stones: and from hence it appears, that the "lithostrata", the
word here used by the Septuagint, or tesserated pavements, were in use four hundred
years before the times of Sylla, where the beginning of them is placed by Pliny (a); there
was a "lithostraton" in the second temple at Jerusalem, by us rendered the pavement,
Joh_19:13, perhaps the same with the room Gazith, so called from its being laid with
hewn stone. Aristeas (b), who lived in the times of Ptolemy Philadelphus, testifies that
the whole floor of the temple was a "lithostraton", or was paved with stone: it is most
likely therefore that these had their original in the eastern country, and not in Greece, as
Pliny (c) supposed.
JAMISO , "Where were white, green, and blue hangings, etc. — 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.
ELLICOTT, "(6) Where were white. . . .—This should be [hangings of] “white
cotton and blue.” The word translated “cotton” (Heb., carpas) occurs only here.
Canon Rawlinson remarks that “white and blue (or violet) were the royal colours of
Persia.”
Linen.—White linen; so the word is used, e.g., in 2 Chronicles 5:12.
Marble.—White marble, as in the last clause of the verse.
Beds.—That is, the couches. The gold is not to be referred simply to the gold-
mbroidered coverings, but to the framework of the couch.
Red and blue . . .—These words are not names of colours, but of actual stones,
although the meaning of most is doubtful enough. The first (bahat) is rendered by
the LXX. as a stone of emerald colour, and may perhaps be malachite. The second
(shesh) is white marble, the third (dar) is pearly, and the last (sokhereth) black.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:6 [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

53. of] gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black, marble.
Ver. 6. Where were white, green, and blue hangings] Rich and royal tapestry, set
forth with variety of colours, pleasant to the eye.
Fastened with cords of fine linen] More precious than silk.
And pillars of marble] To bear up the hangings, that the guests might the better
behold them, and be defended by them from wind, dust, and heat.
The beds] Whereon they sat at meat (which was the manner of all those Eastern
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 bedsteads were. See Amos 6:4; Amos 2:8; Jeremiah
23:40.
Upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black, marble] Or, porphyry or
crystal. All very costly and stately; and these are those things that made us desirous
to live longer here, as Charles V told the duke of Venice; who had showed him his
fair palace richly furnished, Haec sunt quae nos faciunt invitos mori. These are
what they make for us, [who are] unwilling to die. But what said ugas, the
Scythian prince, to certain ambassadors who brought him brave and rich presents?
Will these save a man from sickness? Will they stave off death? Do not these
outward gauds {festivities} and gaieties 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 V (who besides other territories and dominions, had
twenty-eight kingdoms) voluntarily gave over the empire as a burden; and cursing
his honours in his old age, his trophies, riches, royalties, said to them all, Abite hinc,
abite longe, Be gone, all of you; get you hence. Abi perdita bestia quae me perdidisti,
as Cornelius Agrippa said on his death bed, to his familiar devil, Be packing, thou
wretched beast, that hast undone me for ever.
BE SO , "Esther 1:6. Where were white, green, and blue hangings — Set up like
tents. The beds were of gold and silver — On which they sat, or rather lay, at their
meat. The beds themselves, it is probable, were of the softest wool; but the bedsteads
were of gold and silver, that is, studded with gold and silver, or overlaid with plates
of them, as the fashion then was. Upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and
black marble — The Hebrew words babat and shesh, and dar, and sochereth,
signify several sorts of marble, as Bochart hath proved beyond contradiction.
WHEDO , "6. White, green, and blue — White and blue, or violet, seem to have

54. been royal colours in Persia. Comp. Esther 8:15. The great hall of marble pillars
was adorned with hangings of various colours and materials, which were fastened in
festoon-like form to the pillars, and served probably both for ornament and awning.
It is difficult to identify precisely the various colours and substances mentioned in
this verse. Keil renders the whole verse thus: 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,” he remarks, “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.” These couches (which were placed upon the tessellated pavement of the
court, and on which the guests reclined at the banquet) were probably not of solid
gold and silver, but either “covered with cloth woven of gold and silver thread,”
(Keil,) or else mounted and beautifully set with plates of these precious metals.
Herodotus (ix, 80-82) makes mention of the vast quantities of gold and silver vessels
of various kinds, together with gold and silver couches and tables, and various
coloured awnings, ( παραπετασµατα,) which Xerxes carried with him on his
expedition to Greece. Strabo (xv, 3, 19) says of the Persians, “their couches, drinking
cups, and other articles are so brilliantly ornamented that they gleam with gold and
silver.” Other ancient writers also mention the immense wealth of Persia.
COKE, "Esther 1:6. Where were white, green, and blue hangings— See Exodus
24:10. Dr. Shaw, after having said that the floors in the Levant are laid with painted
tiles or plaister of terras, informs us in a note, that a pavement like this is mentioned
in Esther, a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black marble. But this is not
the happiest of the Doctor's illustrations, since floors of different-coloured marble
are common now in the east. Dr. Russel tells us, that they pave their courts at
Aleppo with marble, and often with a mixture of yellow and white, red and black,
by way of ornament; this of Ahasuerus is generally supposed to have been of that
kind; since there is a great difference in point of magnificence between a pavement
of marble, and one of painted tiles; and consequently the palace of so mighty a
monarch as Ahasuerus is rather to be supposed paved with marble; besides, the
historian is giving an account of the pavement of a court-yard, not of a room. See 1
Kings 7:7. Dr. Shaw refers to this passage in the same page on another account. He
says, the eastern chambers, in houses of better fashion, are covered and adorned
from the middle of the wall downwards, "with velvet or damask hangings, of white,
blue, red, green, or other colours, (Esther 1:6.) suspended upon hooks, or taken
down at pleasure." Here again this ingenious author seems to have been less exact,
and should rather, I imagine, have referred to the present passage, when he told us,
that "the courts or quadrangles of their houses, when a large company is to be
received into them, are commonly sheltered from the heat and inclemency of the
weather, by a velum, umbrella, or veil, which, being expanded upon ropes from one
side of the parapet-wall to the other, maybe folded or unfolded at pleasure." See
Travels, p. 209. Though there are some things in this passage which cannot be
determined without difficulty, yet it is extremely plain that the company were
entertained in a court of the palace of Ahasuerus; which agrees with Dr. Shaw's
account, that when much company is to be admitted to a feast the court is the place

55. of their reception. ow, though their chambers are hung with velvet or damask
hangings, it does not appear that on such occasions their courts are thus adorned;
but there is a veil stretched out over-head to shelter them from the inclemency of the
weather; and, indeed, to something of this sort it is commonly supposed these words
refer, though no one has given a better illustration of this piece of ancient history
than Dr. Shaw has undesignedly done in his account of their receiving company,
when the number is large, in these courts, and covering them with veils expanded on
ropes. See Observations, p. 102 and Scheuchzer, tom. 6: p. 12.
PULPIT, "Where were white, green, and blue hangings. There is nothing in the
original corresponding to "green." The "hangings," or rather awning, was of white
cotton (karphas) and violet. Mr. Loftus supposes that it was carried across from the
central pillared hall to the detached porticoes, thus shading the guests from the
intense heat of the sun. Fastened with cords of fine linen and purple. Very strong
cords would be needed to support the awning if it was carried across as above
suggested, over a space of nearly sixty feet. To rings of silver. The exact use of the
rings is doubtful. Perhaps they were inserted into the stone work in order that the
cords might be made fast to them. Pillars of marble. The pillars at Susa are not of
marble, but of a dark-blue limestone. Perhaps the Hebrew shesh designated this
stone rather than marble. The beds were of gold and silver. The couches on which
the guests reclined are intended (comp. Esther 7:8). These were either covered with
gold and silver cloth, or had their actual framework of the precious metals, like
those which Xerxes took with him into Greece (see Herod; 9.82). Upon a pavement
of red, and blue, and white, and black marble. The four words which follow
"pavement" are not adjectives denoting colours, but the names of four different
materials. One is shesh, the material of the pillars, which accords with the fact that
such pavement slabs as have been found at Susa are, like the columns, of a blue
limestone. The other materials are unknown to us, and we cannot say what the exact
colours were; but no doubt the general result was a mosaic pavement of four
different hues.
EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO ARY, "Empire Day
Esther 1:6
Our text is from the first chapter of Esther , part of the sixth verse, "Red, and blue,
and white," or, in more familiar order, red, white, and blue, those three great
colours on the flag which has floated both in England and foreign parts over the
whole of the British Empire.
What a strange power colours have in the nation"s history! We are familiar with the
college colours, the dark blue of Oxford and the light blue of Cambridge; with
school colours, the light blue of Eton and the dark blue of Harrow. We are familiar
with the thought of the great power that the colours of uniforms have in the nation.
We think of the red coats, the colour that Cromwell gave to the British Army, when
he first of all clothed it in a special dress. We think of the blue jackets, the colour
that you may see in elson"s coat in the Royal Institute in Whitehall, the first colour

56. that a British sailor ever wore as an official uniform.
Let us take these colours separately.
I. Red.—Red is the Bible colour for war. Red tells of battle; and we never can repeat
too often the root-idea which is wrapped up in the present-day attitude of
Christianity towards that red—war. It is the attitude of a society which preaches
that war is always a crime, is always wrong, but that there come days in the history
of a nation when we have to choose between a greater crime and a lesser crime. We
have to choose between that great crime, war—and those of us who have seen
anything of it know what it means—but we know that great as that crime Isaiah ,
there is a greater crime, and that Isaiah , by a life of lazy indulgence to let our
country be invaded and exposed to the horrors of a second siege of Jerusalem. It
would be a greater crime to let the nation be exposed to the starvation, terribly
increasing, that we are seeing about us today than to go to war and commit the
lesser crime, crime though it be, of fighting. Let us look at the symbolical teaching of
Trafalgar Square in London, an almost sacred spot for us English people. Go to that
square. There, facing, fronting London, as it were, is the naval column of elson.
What is behind? There is the representation first of the British Army; there are the
monuments of Gordon, and Havelock, and apier. elson stands in front of them.
He keeps the British avy that must defend the British Army. I look a little further
behind and see the ational Gallery that tells of Art and peace. What is it that
makes the peaceful arts, the business life of the nation, possible? And I answer, If I
see the symbolical teaching of Trafalgar Square, I see elson in front of all; I see the
country in such a state of security as the British avy alone makes it possible to be
in.
II. White.—There is another colour. It is white; and I learn that if the red, war, is
indeed to float over England victoriously and successfully, then England"s cause
must be a white cause. We must fight, not for greed, not for aggrandisement, not
merely to increase our foreign possessions, but for a cause that has a clean slate
behind it, for a cause that we can write down as the colour of the second colour in
the great Union Jack—a white cause.
III. Blue.—Then there is that great colour, blue, our own naval colour. There is an
expression which we English people are familiar with in connexion with the colour
blue. It is this, "Be true blue". Be true blue to your king. There have been times,
there have been kings, when, and under whom, it has been difficult for the nation to
stand loyally by, to be true blue to; but this is not the case now. On our great throne
we have a King whose whole object is to keep the country at the high level at which
his ancestors handed it down to him. Be true blue to your country. Be patriots.
IV. There is a Deeper Sense in which red, white, and blue will, I think, teach us all
today.
(a) The red, does it not tell of that great rebellion that is so visibly stalking our
streets everywhere in the form of sin? What is sin but rebellion; and what have we

57. to do but to enlist under the red banner of Him who was the soldiers" God, and
fight sin in whatever form it touches us, either personally or in our country?
(b) Lead, the white life.
(c) Be true to your Christ King.—There is an old toast of the English nation,
"Church and King". First Church, and all the Church stands for, and then King.
First another King, one Jesus. Be loyal to the Christ; fight for Him. Fight the good
fight with all thy might, as He fought for you. "Fight for the right, by day and by
night; fight for the red, white, and blue."
LA GE, "Esther 1:6. The language describing the court of the garden where this
entertainment took place, i.e., the tent-like, enclosed, and covered space of the park,
specially prepared for this festive occasion, and likewise the entertainment itself in
Esther 1:7-8, must be understood as explained by the exclamations of wonder,
white, green, and blue (hangings),etc., these latter being employed as coverings. ‫חוּר‬
designates the white cloths as to color, not as to a certain quality of cloth; from ‫ַר‬‫י‬ָ‫ח‬,
to be white.‫ָם‬‫פּ‬‫ש‬ ְ‫ַר‬‫כּ‬, occurring in the Sanscrit, Pers, Armen, and Arab, corresponds to
the Greek κάρπασος; designating cotton cloth; and, because of the two preceding
and corresponding words, a splendid parti-colored fabric. ‫ֶת‬‫ל‬ֵ‫כ‬ְ‫תּ‬ is the glistening
blue-black hyacinth color, and here means any kind of cloth which had this
particular hue. White and blue were, according to Curtius VI:6, 4, the regal colors
of Persia (comp. also Duncker, as above, pp891,951). These cloths were held fast
(‫)אָחוּז‬ with cords to rings, and by these to the pillars.[F 10] The last words: The
beds (divans) were of gold and silver (lying) upon a pavement of red and blue, and
white and black marble,etc., describe the seats for the guests. Gold and silver here
mean the cloths, which were woven with gold and silver threads. Hence they were
brocades with which these divans were covered. But they lay upon ‫ָח‬‫פּ‬ְ‫צ‬ ִ‫,ר‬ Sept. ἐπὶ
λιθοστρώτου, a tessellated (mosaic) flooring, which was formed of various kinds of
stones. ‫ַט‬‫ה‬ַ‫בּ‬, in Arab, a false stone, accords to the Sept, σµαραγδίτης, a stone of a
green color, similar to the emerald (smaragth), is perhaps malachite or serpentine.
‫שׁ‬ ֵ‫שׁ‬ is white marble; ‫ר‬ַ‫,דּ‬ in Arab. darun and darratun, pearl, Isaiah, according to the
Sept, πίννινος λίθος, a stone similar to pearl, perhaps mother of pearl. ‫ת‬ ֶ‫ֶר‬‫ח‬ֹ ‫ס‬ (from
‫ַר‬‫ח‬ָ‫שׁ‬=‫ַר‬‫ח‬ָ‫ס‬ , dark), is very likely black marble, with scutiform pots.[F 11]
7 Wine was served in goblets of gold, each one
different from the other, and the royal wine was
abundant, in keeping with the king’s liberality.

58. CLARKE, "Vessels being diverse - They had different services of plate.
GILL, "They gave them drink in vessels of gold, the vessels being divers one
from another,.... In the pattern and workmanship of them, though of the same metal,
which diversity made the festival the more grand; earthen cups, with the Persians, were
reckoned very mean; when a king would disgrace a man, he obliged him to use earthen
cups (d). The Targum represents these vessels to be the golden vessels of the temple at
Jerusalem Nebuchadnezzar carried away; which could not be, since they had been
delivered by Cyrus to Zerubbabel, Ezr_1:7,
and royal wine in abundance, according to the state of the king; such as the
king was able to give, the best he had, and that in great plenty; the wine the kings of
Persia used to drink, as Strabo (e) relates, was Chalybonian wine, or wine of Helbon, as
it is called, Eze_27:18; see Gill on Eze_27:18, but by the wine of the kingdom, as it may
be rendered, is meant wine of the country; the wine of Schiras is reckoned the best in
Persia (f).
JAMISO , "they gave them drink in vessels of gold — There is reason to
believe from this account, as well as from Est_5:6; Est_7:2, Est_7:7, Est_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.
K&D, "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.” ‫ּות‬‫ק‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫,ה‬ 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. ‫כוּת‬ ְ‫ל‬ ַ‫מ‬ ‫ין‬ֵ‫י‬ 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. ְ‫ך‬ ֶ‫ל‬ ֶ ַ‫ה‬
‫ד‬ַ‫י‬ ְⅴ, 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 ‫ס‬ֵ‫ּנ‬‫א‬ ‫ין‬ ֵ‫א‬ ‫ת‬ ָ ַⅴ non puto adhibitam fuisse, nisi
jam altera contraria ‫ס‬ֵ‫ּנ‬‫א‬ ‫ת‬ ָ ַⅴ solemnis esset facta. The historian can have noticed this

59. 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. ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ ‫ד‬ ַ ‫,י‬ to appoint concerning, i.e., to enjoin, comp. 1Ch_9:22.
‫ת‬ִ‫י‬ ַ ‫ב‬ ַ‫,ר‬ those over the house, i.e., the court officials.
ELLICOTT, "(7) In vessels of gold.—This shows the immense treasures in the hand
of the Persian king, when the whole population of Susa could be thus
accommodated.
Royal wine.—Perhaps wine of Helbon (Ezekiel 27:18); the original seems to imply
more than merely wine from the royal cellars: as the king was feasting his people, it
could hardly have been otherwise.
State.—Literally, hand.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:7 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.
Ver. 7. And they gave them drink] Think the same of food also; but the whole feast
hath its denomination in the original from drinking; because at such times they
drank freely, and many times more than did them good, Quia in conviviis largiter
bibi solet (Corn. epos in Vit. Alcibiad.). The Persians are infamous for their
intemperance, though they had laws to the contrary; and Xenophon tells us that of
old they were otherwise. Only once a year their king had licence to be drunk, viz.
when they sacrificed to the sun (Athenaeus).
In vessels of gold] Beset with precious stones (as Josephus addeth), ad delectationem
et spectaculum. to pleasure and show.
The vessels being diverse one from another] To show the king’s store of them, that
there was not curta supellex, sparse provision, but great plenty and variety of dishes
and dainties.
And royal wine] Choice wine, and fit for a king’s palate. Vinum Cos, Wine of Cos,
as they call it merrily at Lovain and Paris, id est, coloris, odoris, saporis optimi, of
the best colour, smell, and taste (Beehive of Rome, Pref.).

60. In abundance] They swam in wine, and the tables did even sweat with a variety of
dishes; quicquid avium volitabat, quicquid piscium natabat, quicquid ferarum
discurrebat, &c., whatever of the birds were flying, whatever of the fish were
swiming, whatever of the wild beasts were wandering about. to use Seneca’s
expression.
According to the state of the king] For whom it was not unlawful to feast, so to show
his liberality toward his peers, and courtesy to his people. But that which was
blameworthy in him, was, 1. His vain glory. 2. His prodigality. 3. His wasting of
time. 4. His neglect of business. 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 God’s glory (Merlin. in loc.).
WHEDO , "7. The vessels being diverse — Literally, vessels from vessels differing,
that is, in size, shape, colour, and material.
Royal wine — Such as only king’s were wont to use. According to Strabo the special
drink of the Persian kings was Chalybonian wine from Syria.
According to the state of the king — According to all the other exhibitions of his
royal bounty. Compare 1 Kings 10:13.
EXPOSITOR'S DICTIO ARY, "Spiritual Diversity
Esther 1:7
The text Isaiah , "The vessels being diverse one from another". There is a principle
in this statement; let us find that principle, and fear not to apply it. o two men are
alike. Yet we speak of men as if they were one. They are one, but not in likeness. The
root lies deeper than the appearance; the root is unity, the evolution is variety; but
the variety does not destroy the unity. The great thing to be done is to realize unity
in diversity, and diversity in unity.
I. There are no two sins alike. o two men sin in just the same way. Wherein is the
satisfaction or the subtle delight? It is in this, that I can thank God that I do not sin
as my neighbour sins. There is some originality about my iniquity, there is no
originality about the other man"s iniquity. He who is strong at one point seeks to
magnify his strength by comparing it with the weaknesses of other men. We want
the inner criticism. o two sins are just alike; they are various in measure if not
always various in quality, and are to be judged by the temperament of the men.
When all is known much may be forgiven.
II. Men believe in different ways. We are not all equally gifted in faith. "Him that is
weak in the faith receive ye." You have been made strong that you may help the
weakness of other men. Do not boast of your greatness and your orthodoxy, your
Pharisaic pride and pomp; but wherein the Spirit of Christ has laid hold on you and

61. made you very strong in faith and mighty in prayer, remember that you are trustees
of these abilities and privileges, that you may use them for the sake of the poor, the
outcast, and the weak.
III. It is easy to add, but most necessary, that men work in different ways. The
vessels of gold are diverse one from the other even in this matter of work. But if you
do not work in my way what becomes of you? When will people let other people
alone? when will they recognize individuality of conscience? when will they give
men credit for doing the very best according to their ability. When will we
remember that the vessels of God are diverse the one from the other, that each man
must be himself and work in his own way according to his own ability;
remembering all the time not to make himself offensive to people who work along
other lines and policies?
What a brotherhood there would be amongst us if we all recognized this principle!
o two experiences are alike. We are at liberty to talk one to another, but we are not
at liberty to judge one another in this matter of spiritual experience.
—Joseph Parker, City Temple Pulpit, vol. III. p223.
LA GE, "Esther 1:7. And they gave (them) drink in vessels of gold.—This actually
occurred, or was seen transpiring. ‫קוֹת‬ְ‫ַשׁ‬‫ה‬, Infin. Hiph, is a substantive here. The
vessels being diverse one from another, i.e., very different drinking-vessels were in
service. According to Xenoph. Cyrop. VIII:8, 18, these constituted an essential part
of Persian luxury. And royal wine, i.e., such as was drunk from the royal vaults, as
especially costly, perhaps coming from Chalybon, which it was usual for Persian
kings to drink (comp. Ezekiel 27:18). In abundance, according to the state of the
king.—‫ַד‬‫י‬ְ‫כּ‬, according to the hand=power of the king, means that the great quantity
did honor to the power of the king, or that it corresponded to the ability and riches
of the king (comp. Esther 2:18; 1 Kings 10:13; also ehemiah 2:8).
PULPIT, "They gave them drink in vessels of gold. Drinking-vessels of gold were
found in considerable numbers in the Persian camp near Plataea (Herod; 9.80)
when the Greeks took it. They had been the property of Persian nobles. The king
would naturally possess in great abundance whatever luxury was affected by the
upper class of his subjects. The vessels being diverse one from another. This is a
minute point, which must have come from an eye-witness, or from one who had
received the account of the banquet from an eye-witness. It was perhaps unusual. At
least, in the grand banquet represented by Sargon on the walls of his palace at
Khorsabad, it is observable that all the guests hold in their hands goblets which are
exactly alike. Royal wine. Literally, "wine of the kingdom"—wine, i.e; from the
royal cellar, and therefore good wine, but not necessarily the "wine of Helbon,
which was the only wine that the king himself drank.

62. 8 By the king’s command each guest was allowed
to drink with no restrictions, for the king
instructed all the wine stewards to serve each man
what he wished.
BAR ES, "According to the law - An exception to the ordinary practice of
compulsory drinking had been made on this occasion by the king’s order.
CLARKE, "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: -

63. - 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.
GILL, "And the drinking was according to the law, none did compel,....
According to the law Ahasuerus gave to his officers next mentioned, which was not to
oblige any man to drink more than he chose; the Targum is,`according to the custom of
his body;'that is, as a man is able to bear it, so they drank: some (f) read it, "the drinking
according to the law, let none exact"; or require it to be, according to the custom then in
use in Persia; for they were degenerated from their former manners, and indulged to
intemperance, as Xenophon (g) suggests: the law formerly was, not to carry large vessels
into feasts; but now, says he, they drink so much, that they themselves must be carried
out, because they cannot go upright: and so it became a law with the Greeks, at their
festivals, that either a man must drink or go out (h); so the master of a feast, at which
Empedocles was, ordered either that he should drink, or the wine be poured on his head
(i); but such force or compulsion Ahasuerus forbad: and thus with the Chinese now, they
force none to drink, but modestly invite them (k):
for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house, that they
should do according to every man's pleasure; to let them have what wine they
would, but not force them to drink more than was agreeable to them.
HE RY 8-9, " 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_5:3, Dan_5:4. 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 (Est_1:8), so that if there were any that drank to excess it

64. 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_
2:15, Hab_2:16. 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_5:2), 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, Est_1:9. 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.
ELLICOTT, "(8) Law.—Rather ordinance or decree, that is, specially put forth for
this occasion. What this means is shown by what follows, namely, that the king had
issued special orders to allow all to do as they pleased in the matter of drinking,
instead of as usual compelling them to drink. This degrading habit is the more
noticeable because the Persians were at first a nation of exceptionally temperate
habits.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:8 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.
Ver. 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 school of intemperance; and lest
shameful spueing should be on his glory, Habakkuk 2:15. And, inasmuch as of evil
manners come good laws, 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 Cretans when Minos made a law that men should not
drink one to another, εις µεθην, unto drunkenness; 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 thr they should drink, and that none should quaff whole
ones.
Quinetian Spartae mos est laudabilis ille,
Ut bibat arbitrio pocula quisque suo.
Quinetian of Sparta habit is that praiseworthy, that he toasts everyone with his
choice cup.
one did compel] Domitius, the father of ero, slew Liberius, an honest Roman,
because he refused to drink so much as he commanded him (Sueton.). Tiberius, for

65. his drunkenness called Caldius Biberius Mero, instead of Claudius Tiberius ero,
made ovellus Tricongius proconsul, for that he could drink three bottles of wine
together with one breath. He preferred also Lord Piso to the government of the city
of Rome, because he could sit drinking with him continually for two whole days and
nights together. Lyra upon this text decries this detestable healthing and carousing
too common in all parts of Christendom; and saith that it was brought up first by
the barbarians in ormandy, who came and depopulated that country. And what a
lamentable thing is it that to 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 needless
draughts, as a horse doth a drench, by domineering drunkards. The late good act
against drunkenness, if well executed, will be some curb to our roaring boys; so they
will needs be called by a woeful prolepsis, here for hereafter. Oh that we could
persuade such as Mahomet did his followers, that in every grape there dwelt a devil;
or, that fire and brimstone storm and tempest, this shall be the portion of the
drunkard’s cup.
For so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house] He had appointed,
Heb. he had founded or established it for an inviolable decree and officers on
purpose (controllers of his house) to see it executed. John 2:8, we read of a governor
of the feast. The Jews had such officers or moderators at their merry meetings
(called the eyes and overseers of the feast), that took care that none should drink too
much himself, Praefecti morum, governor of manners, Oινοπται οφθαλµοι. The
Latins also had such, calling them dictators. The Greeks had their symposiarchs;
but among these their power extended no further than to see that the feasters drank
small draughts only at first; which by degrees they increased till they came to the
height of intemperance. But these should have considered that which Anacharsis
had told them, that the vine beareth three grapes; the first of pleasure, the second of
drunkenness, and the third of misery and mischief.
That they should do according to every man’s 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 business 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, it would be dearer, said he, if every man should drink as
I have done; that is, as much as he pleaseth to drink. am ego bibi quantum volui
(Gell. lib. xi. cap. 14).
BE SO , "Esther 1:8. The drinking was according to the law — The Persians were
at first, before they came to have such a great dominion, sober and temperate; but
afterward they fell into the manner and luxury of the Medes and Lydians, and
excited one another at their feasts to drinking. But upon this occasion the king
ordered that there should be nothing of this sort, but every one should drink what
he chose, without being challenged to go further, which was agreeable to some
ancient law of the Persians, 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,

66. under pretence of sending the health round, send the sin round, and death with it!
WHEDO , "8. The drinking… according to the law — That is, according to a
specific decree of the king, which decree was, that there should be no compulsion in
the matter of drinking at this feast. This is seen further on in the words, for so the
king had appointed to all the officers of his house. He gave orders that his guests
should be allowed to drink much or little, or not at all, according to every man’s
pleasure. “He respected their national habits,” says Wordsworth, “and did not
forget that some of the mountaineer Persian tribes, which retained the simplicity
and strictness of their ancient customs, were famous for their temperance.”
(XE OPHO , Cyrop., Esther 1:2; Esther 1:16; AMMIA . MARCELLI US, xxiii,
6.) Large quantities of wine were usually drank at Persian festivals, and it is
supposed that the custom of pledging guests commonly prevailed to such an extent
as to compel many to drink against their will.
LA GE, "Esther 1:8. And the drinking was—i.e., went on—according to the law
(custom); none did compel, etc.‫ת‬ָ‫ַדּ‬‫כּ‬ hardly means a law enacted for this special
occasion; for this purpose the expression would be too general;—but as custom,
especially Persian royal etiquette required. This means, not moderately (as
Clericus,—moralizing was not here intended), but on the contrary that the guests in
a courageous and vigorous carousing should show their appreciation of the liberal
hospitality of the king, and at the same time evince their ability to do something in
their drinking worthy of the royal table. The Greeks knew how to do justice to
hospitality (see Baumgarten, p 12 sq.). While ‫ת‬ָ‫דּ‬ was held to be a special law made
for this occasion, it was thought that its substance was contained in ‫ַם‬‫נ‬‫אָ‬,‫ֵם‬‫נ‬ֹ ‫א‬ ‫ין‬ֵ‫א‬ being
taken in the sense of urging. The meaning is that the drinking was not to occur, as
was usually the case, in compliance with the wishes or encouragements of the court
officers. In contrast with the customary excessive drinking, because of too frequent
urging, this should remain free to all to remain sober. While the Septuagint, in a
free rendering, has joined ‫ֵם‬‫נ‬ֹ ‫א‬ ‫ין‬ֵ‫א‬ with ‫ת‬ָ‫ַדּ‬‫כּ‬ (οὐ κατὰ προκείµενον νόµον), the Vulgate
has it thus: “ ec erat, qui nolentes cogere ad bibendum.” But the true interpretation
of the phrase evidently is as already indicated; every one having entire liberty to
drink of the wine, without urging. The whole tone of the passage expresses
abundance and luxuriance: yet we need not make “urging” out of ‫ַם‬‫נ‬‫,אָ‬ but rather
“creating a real necessity, preparing difficulty, standing in the way in a preventive
manner.” In Daniel 4:6, at least, it has this signification. It may possibly be an
additional form for ‫ַשׁ‬‫נ‬‫אָ‬ (Hitzig on Ezekiel 24:17). At any rate it frequently stands in
the Targums for the Heb. ‫ק‬ַ‫ָשׁ‬‫ע‬,‫ַל‬‫ז‬ָ‫גּ‬ , and ‫ַץ‬‫צ‬ ָ‫.ר‬ That no one should hinder another in
drinking must have been self-evident and understood at a decently-conducted feast.
But here it is stated : For so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house;
here not our own, but Persian customs, give the key. Besides there is a negative
hindrance in drinking, which obtains even among us, and which would seem to have
been necessary in a company where high and low mingled together, namely that of
not so frequently filling the cups. ‫ַד‬‫סּ‬ִ‫י‬ means, as it does in 1 Chronicles 9:22,
arranging (ordering). With ‫ַל‬‫ע‬ it Isaiah, first of all, giving orders in reference to or
for some one. ‫ִת‬‫י‬ַ‫בּ‬ַ‫ה‬‫ב־‬ ַ‫ר‬ = the chief of the house, i.e., court-officer.

67. 9 Queen Vashti also gave a banquet for the
women in the royal palace of King Xerxes.
BAR ES, "Vashti - If Ahasuerus is Xerxes, Vashti would be Amestris, whom the
Greeks regarded as the only legitimate wife of that monarch, and who was certainly
married to him before he ascended the throne. The name may be explained either as a
corruption of Amestris, or as a title, vahishta, (Sanskrit: vasishtha, the superlative of
vasu, “sweet”); and it may be supposed that the disgrace recorded (Est_1:19-21, see the
note) was only temporary; Amestris in the later part of Xerxes’ reign recovering her
former dignity.
CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women.... For it was not
customary with the Persians, nor other eastern nations, to admit of women to their
festivals (m), but they feasted by themselves. Who Vashti was is not known with any
certainty. Bishop Usher, who takes Ahasuerus to be Darius Hystaspis, thinks Vashti was
Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, whom he married. The Targumist says, she was the
daughter of Evilmerodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Her name seems to be the same
with Vesta, a deity worshipped by the Persians, as Xenophon (n), and signifies vehement
fire, which was in great veneration with them; and therefore this queen is most likely to
be of Persian original: she kept her feast
in the royal house which belonged to Ahasuerus; her guests not being so many,
there was room enough in the king's palace for them, and where it was more decent for
them to be than in the open air in the garden, and exposed to the sight of men.
JAMISO , "Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women — The

68. 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.
K&D 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 ‫ב‬ ֵ‫ל‬ ‫ּוב‬‫ט‬ ְⅴ, 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 (‫י‬ֵ‫נ‬ ְ ‫ת־‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ת‬ ֵ‫ר‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫מ‬ 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 (‫ר‬ ֶ‫ת‬ ֶⅴ, 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.
COFFMA , "Verse 9
VASHTI REFUSES TO HO OR THE KI G'S CALL TO DISPLAY HER
BEAUTY
"Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women in the royal house which
belonged to king Ahashuerus. On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was
merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, and
Abagthar, Zethur, and Carcas, the seven chamberlains that ministered in the
presence of Ahashuerus the king, to bring Vashti the queen before the king with the
crown royal, to show the peoples and the princes) her beauty; for she was fair to
look on. But the queen Vashti refused to come at the kinifs commandment by the
chamberlains: therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him."
"When the heart of the king was merry with wine" (Esther 1:10). This appears to
this writer as a euphemism with the meaning that the king was drunk. That this is
true appears from the fact of the king's unreasonable request.

69. "The seven chamberlains that ministered before the king" (Esther 1:10). The fact of
these men having access to the king's harem indicates that all of them were eunuchs.
Scholars usually suggest that this request of the king was reasonable, but this writer
cannot believe that it was reasonable, else Vashti, knowing the outrageous nature of
the king's ungovernable temper, would not have disobeyed him. She most certainly
knew that death itself might be the penalty of her refusal.
"But the queen refused to come" (Esther 1:12). Scholars have suggested a number
of possible reasons why Vashti would not obey the king, but in all likelihood, Vashti
was pregnant with Artaxerxes I. John Bendor-Samuel writes that, "This banquet
probably took place just before the birth of Artaxerxes";[10] and her natural
modesty rebelled against making a display of herself before the king and his well
drunken banqueteers.
QUEE VASHTI IS DEPOSED A D DISPOSSESSED
What a heartless, evil wretch was Xerxes! "His design was to present Vashti
unveiled before a multitude of semi-drunken revelers ... Xerxes' behavior here was a
cruel outrage upon one whom he, above all men, was bound to respect and
protect."[11] In a few days she would give birth to his son who would succeed him
on the throne, but this half-drunken old fool had no honor or respect for anyone on
earth except himself!
Some small measure of appreciation for Xerxes may be found in the fact that he did
not at once order the death and dismemberment of Vashti, as he would later do for
the oldest son of Pythius, for he restrained his anger sufficiently that he took the
matter up with his counselors.
ELLICOTT, "9) Vashti.—According to Gesenius, the name Vashti means beautiful.
Among the Persians it was customary that one wife of the sovereign should be
supreme over the rest, and her we sometimes find exercising an authority which
contrasts strangely with the degraded position of women generally. Such a one was
Atossa, the mother of Xerxes. Vashti, too, before her deposition, was evidently the
queen par excel. lence. We find, however, that the name given by the Greek writers
to the queen of Xerxes was Amestris, of whose cruelty and dissolute life numerous
details are given us by Herodotus and others. There seem good grounds for
believing that she was the wife of Xerxes before he became king, which if established
would of itself be sufficient to disprove the theory of some who would identify
Esther and Amestris. Moreover, Herodotus tells us (. 82) that Amestris was the
cousin of Xerxes, the daughter of his father’s brother; and although we cannot view
Esther as of a specially high type of womanhood, still it would be most unjust to
identify her with one whose character is presented to us in most unlovely guise.
Bishop Wordsworth suggests that Amestris was a wife who had great influence with
Xerxes between the fall of Vashti and the rise of Esther. If, however, Amestris was
really the chief wife before Xerxes came to the throne, this could hardly be, and the
time allowed seems much too scanty, seeing that in it falls the invasion of Greece.
Or, lastly, we may with Canon Rawlinson say that Vashti is Amestris (the two

70. names being different reproductions of the Persian, or Vashti being a sort of title)
and that the deposition was a temporary one.
The women.—There should be no article.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:9 Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women [in] the
royal house which [belonged] to king Ahasuerus.
Ver. 9. Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women] Heb. A feast, or a
compotation of women. This was better yet than Heliogabalus’s senate 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, Esther 1:1.
Conveniunt rebus nomina saepe suis.
The notables came together often with their own matters. Josephus, and after him
Lyra, give her the commendation of a modest woman. ‘Tis probable she had the
king’s consent to feast the women, because it was in the royal house; and it added
much to the king’s munificence. But then she should have subdued her husband by
obeying him, as Livia (as great an empress) did Augustus. Dio reporteth of her, that
being asked how she got such a power over her husband, she answered, Multa
modestia, By my much modesty (Dio in Tiberio). It is remarkable in this third feast,
that, first, the women feasted within doors, 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 herself; or, of necessity, because either the custom of the
country or the king’s jealousy would not allow her presence among so many of the
other sex, yet surely this may condemn (as one well saith) our most lascivious
mingling of both sexes together in dancing, and such like meetings; where nothing is
more usual than lustful looks, filthy speeches, unclean touches. Apage omnem hanc
impudentiam, shun all occasions of sin 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
damsel so inflamed that old goat Herod, that, like a mad man, he sweareth to give
her her desire to the half of his kingdom. In all mixed meetings of both sexes, let the
husband’s eyes be eyes of adamant, which will turn only to one point; lest some
Circe (a) enchant him, having faculty attractive with the jet, 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 bridegroom? How? saith she; I know not; I saw
nobody but my husband.
BE SO , "Esther 1:9. Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women — While
the king entertained the men. For this was the common custom of the Persians, that
men and women did not feast together. In the royal house — ot in the open air, as
the men were, but more privately, as was fit for women.

71. WHEDO , "9. Vashti the queen — Rawlinson is inclined to identify this queen with
Amestris, and supposes that her divorce and disgrace, recorded in this chapter, may
have been only temporary, and that she was restored to her former dignity again in
the latter part of Xerxes’ reign. More probably, however, she was not the queen-
consort, but a favourite concubine, whom the king delighted to honour. As he
lavished royal honours on a favourite officer, (Esther 6:11,) so might he allow a
favourite of his harem to make and preside at a feast for the women in the royal
house. The Greek writers state that it was a custom of the Persians to introduce
their wives and concubines at great feasts, but, when drunken and riotous, they sent
their legitimate wives away, and called in the concubines and singing girls.
COKE, "Esther 1:9. Vashti the queen made a feast, &c.— Dr. Shaw observes, that,
as in former ages, so at present, it is the custom in the eastern countries, at all their
festivals and entertainments, for the men to be treated in separate apartments from
the women, not the least intercourse or communication being ever allowed between
the sexes. See Travels, p. 232.
LA GE, "Esther 1:9-12. The Queen’s Banquet, and her Refusal to appear in the
Royal Presence.—The festival of the king went hand in hand with that of the queen,
which doubtless was intended to bring into view at the same time the royal majesty
and magnificence. Usually the queen ate with her husband (see Herod. IX:110), and
even in greater feasts she was not under all circumstances excluded, as is proved by
the reference to Lucian by Brissonius, De regio Pers. princ. I, c103. At this time she
was compelled to remain away, since she also gave entertainment to the ladies. To
permit the participation of women in all the feasts of the men would certainly not
have been very desirable, since it was a mixed company.
Esther 1:9. The name Vashti, ‫י‬ִ‫תּ‬ ְ‫ַשׁ‬‫ו‬, has probably a connection with the Old-Persian
vahista (“the best”), or with the related behisht (“paradisiacus”); comp. Pott, Ueber
alt-pers. Eigennamen, in the Zeitschrift, d. D. M. G., 1859, p388. In modern Persian
Vashti signifies a beautiful woman. Vashti gave the feast to the ladies in the king’s
palace, i.e., either in her own apartments, which also were in the royal residence, or
in some other dwellings there which were placed at her disposal for this festive
occasion.[F 12]
PULPIT, "Vashti, the queen. The only wife of Xerxes known to the Greeks was
Amestris, the daughter of Otanes, one of the seven conspirators (Herod; 7.61).
Xerxes probably took her to wife as soon as he was of marriageable age, and before
he ascended the throne had a son by her, who in his seventh year was grown up
(ibid. 9.108). It would seem to be certain that if Ahasuerus is Xerxes, Vashti must be
Amestris. The names themselves are not very remote, since will readily interchange
with v; but Vashti might possibly represent not the real name of the queen, but a
favourite epithet, such as vahista, "sweetest." Made a feast for the women. Men and
women did not take their meals together in Persia unless in the privacy of domestic
life. If the women, therefore, were to partake in a festivity, it was necessary that they
should be entertained separately. In the royal house. In the gynaeceum or harem,

72. which was probably on the southern side of the great pillared hall at Susa
(Fergusson).
10 On the seventh day, when King Xerxes was in
high spirits from wine, he commanded the seven
eunuchs who served him—Mehuman, Biztha,
Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha, Zethar and Karkas—
CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "On the seventh day,.... Of the feast, the last day of it, which the Rabbins, as
Jarchi observes, say was the sabbath day, and so the Targum:
when the heart of the king was merry with wine; when he was intoxicated with it,
and knew not well what he said or did; and the discourse at table ran upon the beauty of
women, as the latter Targum; when the king asserted there were no women so beautiful
as those of Babylon, and, as a proof of it, ordered his queen to be brought in:
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", as the word is sometimes rendered; and such
persons were made use of in the eastern countries to, wait upon women, and so were
proper to be sent on the king's errand to the queen.
HE RY 10-11, "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 is own folly. An unhappy falling out
there was, at the end of the feast, between the king and queen, which broke of 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

73. 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, Est_1:10, Est_1:11. 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_20:16), 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.
JAMISO 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 revelers, 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.
ELLICOTT, "(10) Was merry with wine.—The habit of the Persians to indulge in
wine to excess may be inferred from Esther 1:8.
Chamberlains.—Literally, eunuchs. The names of the men, whatever they may be,
are apparently not Persian. The enumeration of all the seven names is suggestive of
personal knowledge on the part of the writer.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:10 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,
Ver. 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 days of
the feast, having farced his body with good cheer like a woolsack, and inflamed it
with wine wherein was excess, he bethinks himself of other pleasures. Vina parant
animos Veneri (Ovid). Aristophanes calleth wine the milk of Venus and fuel of lust.
Ambrose saith that lust is fed with feasts, nourished with delicacies, kindled with
wine, set on flame with drunkenness (lib. i. de Paenit. c. 4). A belly filled with wine
foameth out filthiness, saith Jerome.

74. When the heart of the king was merry with wine] The property whereof is to
exhilarate the heart of man, as the Scripture speaketh, 9:13, Psalms 104:15. Pluto
calleth wine the mitigator of man’s misery. Euripides saith, Qui non hilarescit
bibendo, nihil sapit. He who is not gladdened by drinking, understands nothing. But
Ahasuerus’s heart was too merry; the wine was so in, that the wit was out;
drunkenness 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 Proverbs 31:4, {See Trapp on "Proverbs
31:4"} What mad work made Alexander the Great many times in his drunkenness,
killing those then whom he would afterwards have revived, if he could, with his own
heart blood! Therefore it was that the Carthaginians forbade their magistrates all
use of wine. Solon punished drunkenness in a ruler with death. And Ferdinand I,
emperor of Germany, sharply reproved the ambassadors of the electors and princes
sent to an imperial diet, for their quaffing and careless performance of their trust,
saying, Abstinete a maledicta ebrietare, &c., Abstain, for shame, from this cursed
drunkenness (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
drunkenness had robbed him of himself, and laid a fool in his room, wine had
overshadowed his wisdom, vine sapientia obumbratur, 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, lib. xi. Antiq. cap. 6) 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 anything, and whose song is, Mihi placet
quicquid regi placet, That which pleaseth the king pleaseth me, howsoever.
WHEDO , "DIVORCE OF VASHTI, Esther 1:10-22.
10. On the seventh day — The last day of the feast. Compare Esther 1:5.
Merry with wine — “The Persians are much addicted to wine,” writes Herodotus, (i,
133.) “They are accustomed to debate the most important affairs when intoxicated,
but they reconsider such deliberation the next day, when they are sober, and if they
approve it when sober also, they adopt it, if not, they reject it, and whatever they
have first resolved on when sober, they reconsider when intoxicated.” This feast of
Ahasuerus seems to have increased in riot and drunken revelry as the days passed.
The seven chamberlains — Rather, eunuchs, who had principal charge of the royal
harem. Their number corresponded to that of the princes, Esther 1:14.
CO STABLE, "1. The king"s feast1:1-9
Ahasuerus is the Hebrew name of the Persian king, Khshayarsha, whom we know
better in ancient history by his Greek name, Xerxes. [ ote: Lewis B. Paton, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther , p54. Cf. Ezra 4:5-7;

75. Daniel 11:2.] He reigned over the Persian Empire from486 to464 B.C. and was the
son of Darius I (521-486 B.C.). Another high-ranking Persian government officer,
Artabanus, eventually assassinated him.
Xerxes is famous in secular history for two things: his defeat at the hands of the
Greeks, and his building of the royal Persian palace at Persepolis. In481 B.C. he
took about200 ,000 soldiers and hundreds of ships to Greece to avenge his father
Darius" loss at the battle of Marathon (490 B.C.). However, he too suffered defeat,
in a three-fold manner. His soldiers lost the battle of Thermopylae to the Spartans,
his army also lost at the battle of Plataea, and the Greeks destroyed his navy in the
battle of Salamis.
The writer mentioned the vast area Xerxes controlled (cf. Esther 8:9; Esther 10:1).
Perhaps he did this to avoid confusion with another Ahasuerus ( Daniel 9:1) whose
Song of Solomon , Darius the Mede, governed the Babylonian provinces under
Cyrus the Great from539 to about525 B.C. "India" refers to the territory that is
now western Pakistan. "Cush" was the upper (southern) ile region including
southern Egypt, the Sudan, Eritrea, and northern Ethiopia, land west of the Red
Sea. The127 "provinces" (Heb. medina) were governmental units of the empire.
These were political subdivisions of the satrapies (cf. Esther 3:12). [ ote: F. B. Huey
Jeremiah , " Esther ," in1Kings- Job , vol4of The Expositor"s Bible Commentary,
p798.]
"Susa" ( Esther 1:2) is the Greek name for the Hebrew "Shushan." It was a winter
capital and had formerly been the capital of the kingdom of Elam. Susa was the
name of both the capital city and the royal fortress that occupied a separate part of
the city. [ ote: Ibid, p298.] Other Persian capitals were Ecbatana (200 miles north
of Susa, modern Hamadan, Ezra 6:2), Babylon (200 miles west, Ezra 6:1),
Pasargadae, and Persepolis (both300 miles southeast). [ ote: See Edwin M.
Yamauchi, "The Achaemenid Capitals," ear Esat Archaeology Society Bulletin,
S8 (1976):5-81.] Persepolis was Xerxes" main residence. [ ote: Breneman, p304.]
Forty years after the events the writer described in the Book of Esther , ehemiah
served as cupbearer to Artaxerxes, Xerxes" son (cf. ehemiah 1:1 to ehemiah 2:1).
The Hebrew word translated "capital" ( ASB) or "citadel" ( IV habirah) refers to
an acropolis or fortified area that stood72feet above the rest of the city. A wall two
and one-half miles long surrounded it. [ ote: Ibid.]
The third year of Ahasuerus" (Xerxes") reign ( Esther 1:3) was evidently482 B.C.
For180 days (six months) he entertained his guests ( Esther 1:4). This was evidently
the military planning session that Ahasuerus conducted to prepare for his campaign
against the Greeks. The Greek historian Herodotus referred to this meeting and said
it took Ahasuerus four years (484-481 B.C.) to prepare for his Greek campaign.
[ ote: Herodotus, The Histories, 7:8 , 20.] Ahasuerus" Persian army suffered defeat
at the hands of the Greeks at Plataea in479 B.C.
"While labourers received barely enough to live on, even though they were

76. producing works of art that are still unsurpassed, life at court was extravagant
beyond imagining. The more lavish the king"s hospitality, the greater his claim to
supremacy." [ ote: Baldwin, p55.]
White and violet (blue, Esther 1:6) were the royal colors of Persia. [ ote: John C.
Whitcomb, Esther: Triumph of God"s Sovereignty, p37.] This palace burned to the
ground about435 B.C, toward the end of Artaxerxes" reign. [ ote: A. T. Olmstead,
History of the Persian Empire, p352.]
Banquets are a prominent feature of this story. At least nine receive mention (
Esther 1:1-9; Esther 2:18; Esther 3:15; Esther 5:4; Esther 5:8; Esther 8:17; Esther
9:17-19).
LA GE, "Esther 1:10. On the seventh day, as the last of the feast, in which perhaps
there was the greatest joviality. When the heart of the king was merry with wine,i.e.,
well disposed, happy (‫ְטוֹב‬‫כּ‬, as in 2 Samuel 13:18; Judges 16:25; ‫טוֹב‬ is the infin.
constr. Kal, with an intransitive signification), would grant a still greater favor to
his guests, and one too which he would not have been willing to grant in a more
sober mood. He turned to the seven eunuchs that served before him, ‫ֵי‬‫נ‬ְ‫פּ‬‫ת־‬ֶ‫,א‬ together
with ‫ת‬ ֵ‫ר‬ֵ‫,שּׁ‬ as in 1 Samuel 2:18. Their names signify nothing for the present purpose;
and there are no certain data for their interpretation.[F 13] But our author names
them because they were transmitted to him, and in order that the historical
character of his narrative may be strengthened thereby. Certain it Isaiah, they were
the medium between the king and the ladies. They were to transmit the commands
of the former to the latter. Their number, seven, has close connection with that of
the Amshaspands. This number was peculiarly sacred to the Persians, see Esther
1:14.
PULPIT, "THE DISGRACE OF VASHTI (Esther 1:10-22).
On the seventh day of the feast "to all in Shushan" (Esther 1:5), the king having
excited himself with drink, took it into his head to send a message to Vashti,
requiring her to make her appearance in the banquet of the men, since he desired to
exhibit her beauty to the assembled guests, as "she was fair to look on" (Esther
1:11). His design must have been to present her unveiled to the coarse admiration of
a multitude of semi-drunken revellers, in order that they might envy him the
possession of so lovely a wife. Such a proceeding was a gross breach of Persian
etiquette, and a cruel outrage upon one whom he above all men was bound to
protect. Vashti, therefore, declined to obey (Esther 1:12). Preferring the risk of
death to dishonour, she braved the anger of her despotic lord, and sent him back a
message by his chamberlains that she would not come. We can well understand that
to an absolute monarch such a rebuff, in the face of his whole court and of some
hundreds or thousands of assembled guests, must have been exasperating in the
extreme. At the moment when he had thought to glorify himself by a notable display
of his omnipotence, he was foiled, defeated, made a laughing-stock to all Susa.
"Therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him." It is to his

77. credit that, being thus fiercely enraged, he did not proceed to violence, but so far
restrained himself as to refer the matter to the judgment of others, and ask the
"seven princes" the question, "What is to be done according to law unto queen
Vashti, for not performing the commandment of the king?" (verse 15). The advice of
the princes, uttered by one of their body (verses 16-20), and assented to by the
remainder (verse 21), was, that Yashti should be degraded from the position of
queen, and her place given to another. This sentence was supported by specious
arguments based upon expediency, and ignoring entirely the outrageous character
of the king's command, which was of course the real, and sole, justification of
Vashti's disobedience. It was treated as a simple question of the wife's duty to obey
her husband, and the husband's right to enforce submission. Ahasuerus, as might be
expected, received the decision of his obsequious counsellors with great satisfaction,
and forthwith sent letters into all the provinces of his vast empire, announcing what
had been done, and requiring wives everywhere to submit themselves unreservedly
to the absolute rule of their lord (verse 22).
Esther 1:10
When the heart of the king was merry with wine. We are told that once a year, at
the feast of Mithra, the king of Persia was bound to intoxicate himself (Duris, Fr.
13). At other times he did as he pleased, but probably generally drank reason was
somewhat obscured. Mehuman, etc. Persian etymologies have been given for most of
these names, but they are all more or less uncertain; and as eunuchs were often
foreigners, mutilated for the Persian market (Herod; 3:93; 8:105), who bore foreign
names, like the Hermotimus of Herodotus (8:104-106), it is quite possible that
Persian etymologies may here be out of place. Bigtha, however, if it be regarded as a
shortened form of Bigthan (Esther 2:21) or Bigthana (Esther 6:1-14.), would seem to
be Persian, being equivalent to Bagadana (= Theodorus), "the gift of God."
Chamberlains. Really, as in the margin, "eunuchs." The influence of eunuchs at the
Persian court was great from the time of Xerxes. Ctesias makes them of importance
even from the time of Cyrus ('Exc. Pera,' § 5, 9).
11 to bring before him Queen Vashti, wearing her
royal crown, in order to display her beauty to the
people and nobles, for she was lovely to look at.

78. BAR ES, "To bring Vashti the queen - This command, though contrary to
Persian customs, is not out of harmony with the character of Xerxes; and is evidently
related as something strange and unusual. Otherwise, the queen would not have refused
to come.
CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "To bring Vashti the queen before the king,.... Not against her will, or by
force; but they were sent to let her know it was the king's pleasure that she should come
to him immediately:
with the crown royal; that is, upon her head, to make her look the more grand and
majestic:
to show the people and the princes her beauty; for she was fair to look upon;
which was not wisely done, neither was it comely nor safe.
ELLICOTT, "(11) To bring Vashti.—It is evident from the way in which the
incident is introduced that had Ahasuerus been sober he would not have asked such
a thing. Vashti naturally sends a refusal.
Crown royal.—If this were like that worn by a king, it would be a tall cap decked
with gems, and with a linen fillet of blue and white; this last was the diadem. (See
Trench, ew Testament Synonyms, § 23.)
TRAPP, "Esther 1:11 To bring Vashti the queen before the king with the crown
royal, to shew the people and the princes her beauty: for she [was] fair to look on.
Ver. 11. To bring Vashti 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 envied the queen, and so sought occasion against her (as the
bishops did against Queen Catharine Parr), or were in the king’s 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 show them all his
own imprudence and impudence; this he would not have done, if sober, for any

79. good. Quid non ebrietas designat? "Wine is a mocker, and strong drink is raging."
Could he not consider what he had oft read befell Candaules, king of the Sardians,
for showing his fair wife to Gyges in a vain glorious humour? (Herodot., Justin.)
Knew he not that those well whittled courtiers would soon be inflamed with the
sight of such a peerless beauty, and that her gay attire would not make her more
comely than 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. Vashti, we must needs
think, then, was a choice beauty; and if she were (as Aspasia Milesia, wife to king
Cyrus) fair and wise, it was no small commendation, καλλει τας γυναικας απασας
υτερβαλλουσα (Joseph.); καλη και σοφη (Aelian.). But if (as Aurelia Orestilla in
Sallust) she had nothing in her praise worthy 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 Vashti, that is, a
drinker), that she hated the Jews extremely, and abused various 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 nakedness, &c. This perhaps
is but a Jewish fable.
WHEDO , "11. The crown royal — “The crown royal, or ordinary headdress of a
Persian king, was a stiff cap, probably of felt or cloth, ornamented with a blue and
white band or ribbon — which was the diadem proper. The character of the queen’s
crown is unknown.” — Rawlinson. This mention of the crown royal does not prove
Vashti to have been the principal and legitimate wife of Ahasuerus, for, as shown
above, (see note on Esther 1:9,) a favourite concubine may have been thus honoured.
LA GE, "Esther 1:11. They were to bring the queen in the regal crown, ‫ר‬ֵ‫ֶת‬‫כּ‬,
κἰδαρις or κίταρις, i.e., in a high, pointed turban, and consequently bring her in her
entire royal apparel, in order to show her beauty to the prince, as well as to the
entire people, of whom at least there were representatives present. Xerxes was
desirous of glory, not only because of his riches, but also because of his beautiful
wife.[F 14]
PULPIT, "Vashti … with the crown royal. We have no representation of a Persian
queen among the sculptures; but Mousa, a Parthian queen, appears on a coin of her
son Phraataces, crowned with a very elaborate tiara. It consists of a tall stiff cap, not
unlike the cidaris of a Persian king, but is apparently set with large jewels. Vashti's
"crown royal" was probably not very dissimilar. To show the princes and the
people her beauty. More than one Oriental monarch is reported to have desired to
have his own opinion of his wife's beauty confirmed by the judgment of others.
Candaules, king of Lydia, is said to have lost his crown and his life through
imprudently indulging this desire (Herod; 1.8-12). So public an exposure, however,
as that designed by Ahasuerus is not recorded of any other monarch, and would
scarcely have been attempted by any one less extravagant in his conduct than
Xerxes.

80. 12 But when the attendants delivered the king’s
command, Queen Vashti refused to come. Then
the king became furious and burned with anger.
CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "But the queen refused to came at the king's commandment by his
chamberlains,.... Even though he sent by them again, as the Targum; and so says
Josephus (o); which might not purely arise from pride in her, and contempt of him, but
because she might conclude he was drunk, and knew not well what he did; and therefore
had she come at his command, when he was himself and sober, he might blame her for
coming, nay, use her ill for it, and especially if she was to come naked, as say the Jews
(p); and besides, it was contrary to the law of the Persians, as not only Josephus (q), but

81. Plutarch (r) observes, which suffered not women to be seen in public; and particularly
did not allow their wives to be with them at feasts, only their concubines and harlots,
with whom they could behave with more indecency; as for their wives, they were kept
out of sight, at home (s); and therefore Vashti might think it an indignity to be treated as
an harlot or concubine:
therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him; which was
the more fierce, as he was inflamed with wine.
HE RY, ". However, perhaps it was not her wisdom to deny him. She refused to
come (Est_1:12); 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, Est_1:12. 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.
K&D, "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.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:12 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.
Ver. 12. But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s commandment] She
peremptorily and contumaciously refused, ουκ ηθελεν (Septuag.), though sent for
again and again (as Josephus hath it), by her lord and husband, who had in his cups
boasted of his wife’s beauty, courtesy, and obedience, 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 herself as if she
had been his mistress, 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 king’s jealousy, &c.? yet Vashti was to have
submitted herself unto her own husband (such a husband especially), as it was fit in
the Lord, Colossians 3:18, to yield obedience to all his lawful commands and

82. restraints, seem 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 controller, as they
are apt to be that are fair ( fastus inest formae), rich ( argentum accepi, dote
imperium vendidi, saith he in Plautus), better descended, &c., si vis nubere, nube
pari. An insolent wife is an insufferable evil; and he hath lost half the comfort of his
life who is married to such a one.
Therefore was the king very wroth] He even foamed at the mouth like a wild boar,
and frothed 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, yet were
commanded by their wives and concubines, Captivarum suarum captivi Enslaved
by their captives! (Plut.). But here it proved otherwise. This mighty monarch could
not bear such a public affront and scorn 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 Conqueror, who though he knew that Maud, his
wife, maintained her son, Robert Curtoise, in his quarrel for ormandy, and out of
her own coffers paid the charge of that war against his father, and her own
husband, yet because it proceeded but from a motherly indulgence for advancing
her son, he took for a cause rather of displeasure than of hatred. He loved her while
alive, often lamented her death with tears, and most honourably interred her
(Speed).
And his anger burned in him] As ebuchadnezzar also did upon a like occasion,
hotter than his seven times heated oven, or than the mountain Etna doth. Moses’s
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, Jonah 4:9, his blood
boiled 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.
BE SO , "Esther 1:12. The queen Vashti refused to come — Being favoured in this
refusal by the law of Persia, which was, to keep men’s wives, and especially queens,
from the view of other men. His anger burned in him — It was the more
immoderate, because his blood was heated with wine, which made his passion too
strong for his reason. Otherwise he would not have thought it decent for the queen,
nor safe for himself, to have her beauty, which was very great, exposed in this
unusual manner, and would have thought she had acted prudently in refusing.
WHEDO , "12. Vashti refused to come — Assuming the dignity and boldness of a
queen, she refused to be treated as an ordinary concubine, and to suffer her person
to be immodestly exposed to the promiscuous crowd of half drunken revellers. “The
summons,” remarks Tyrwhitt, “probably found her with a crowd of female guests
before her. She might have been loth at another time to obey; but while they looked

83. on, it was a severer trial to be required to abdicate her dignity, and, confessing her
royal state his bounty, to cast, as it were, her crown before his footstool.” Only such
a king as Xerxes would have made such a demand upon a favourite concubine, but
it is perfectly in keeping with his character.
COKE, "Esther 1:12. Therefore was the king very wroth— His anger was the more
immoderate because his blood was heated with wine, which made his passion too
strong for his reason; otherwise he would not have thought it decent for the queen to
have her beauty, which was very great, exposed in this unusual manner. See Bishop
Patrick.
PARKER, "We read in the twelfth verse that Vashti turned the whole occasion to
new meanings.
"But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king"s commandment by his
chamberlains" ( Esther 1:12).
She too had a feast "for the women in the royal house which belonged to king
Ahasuerus." Was there any wine there? ot that we read of. Was the Persian law at
all like the Roman law? for the Roman senate decreed that no woman should drink
wine. Was this feast of Vashti"s a sober feast—a feast fit for women? If Song of
Solomon , her reason may have grown in strength and clearness, and her will in
genuine moral dignity. Who knows what was said at the feast? An infamous old
rabbin, whose bones ought to be exhumed and burned by the common hangman,
said that speech descended in ten measures, and that woman ran away with nine of
them. He was a rabbin! We cannot tell what is being plotted in other houses. When
we feast ourselves we do not take in the whole situation: there is life below stairs, life
on the other side of the street, life that makes no noise but that schemes well, and
that has patience to complete the powder circuit before applying the fusee. Vashti
said, o, I will not come, I will not be made a show of. "Therefore was the king very
wroth, and his anger burned in him"—literally, he frothed at the mouth, and
became as a wild boar. The strength of manhood is in self-control. The Oriental
king very soon became intolerably hot. He had a trick of anger. He could not brook
that his will should be resisted. It is the very highest attainment of Christian
education that a man shall accept the resistance of his will as an element in his
culture: no man will seek to force his will; he will reason about it, he will be mighty
in argument, tender and gentle in persuasion, and if he cannot win the first day or
the second day he may be successful on the third day. But mere force never won a
true victory. There may have been almost annihilation on the opposite side, but
where there is one little spark left, that little spark hopes that it will become one day
an avenging conflagration. Conquer by love, and you will reign by consent. Let men
feel that your wisdom is greater than theirs, and they will say, God save the king!
The time will come when every man will have to prove his kingliness, not because of
the insignia that he keeps in the tower, but because of a wise head, a noble heart,
and a hand that never refused its offices to an honest cause.

84. LA GE, "Esther 1:12. But the queen Vashti refused to come.—‫ְֶך‬‫ל‬ֶ‫מּ‬ַ‫ה‬ ‫ַר‬‫ב‬ְ‫ִד‬‫בּ‬ here has
reference to the word of the king, as in Esther 3:15; Esther 8:14; 1 Kings 13:1; 1
Kings 13:8. By (his) chamberlains,i.e., which was brought to her in a formal
manner, and which therefore ought to have been obeyed all the more (comp. Esther
1:15). Persian etiquette gave to ladies, and especially to the queen, a certain reserve,
and this under all circumstances. It was regarded as something unheard of if the
queen appeared in public unveiled. But here, where there was no doubt of the fact
that she should become the gazing-stock of a drunken company, that, so to speak,
she should make a show of herself to the lascivious eyes of so many—according to
the extremely literal view of the Targums, she was to appear naked—she had a
right, indeed she was compelled to guard and keep in mind her dignity. There is no
doubt that as the queen she was safe from such shameless proceedings as Herodotus
( Esther 1:18) relates of Persian foreign ministers. But instead of being rejoiced at
the modesty of his queen the king felt deeply humbled in the eyes of those to whom
he would have shown himself in his highest glory. It is possible, and even probable,
that a well-known self-assertion of Vashti had something to do in the matter. But
this we need not necessarily assume in connection with his peculiar character in
order to explain his wrath. Pride and self-exaltation perhaps so blinded him that he
did not dream of such a rebuff. Perhaps, too, she might have found some way, had
she been wise, in which without compromising herself she might have rendered
obedience. But however bad the fact, the unfavorable light does not fall on her, but
upon the king. He appears so thoughtless that one is quite prepared to expect still
other rash and inconsiderate acts from him.
PULPIT, "But the queen Vashti refused. Vashti's refusal was morally quite
justifiable. either a husband's nor a king's authority extends to the wanton
requirement of acts that, if done, would disgrace the doer for life. Had Vashti
complied, she would have lost the respect not only of the Persian nation, but of the
king himself. Therefore was the king very wroth. Had Ahasuerus really loved his
wife, or been a man of fair and equitable disposition, be would have excused her
refusal, and felt that he had deserved the rebuff. But, not really loving her, and
being of a hot and ungovernable temper, he was violently enraged with her, as he
always was when anything fell out contrary to his wishes (see Herod; 7:11, 35, 39,
etc.).
13 Since it was customary for the king to consult
experts in matters of law and justice, he spoke
with the wise men who understood the times

85. BAR ES, "Wise men ... - Not “astrologers,” who were unknown in Persia; but
rather men of practical wisdom, who knew the facts and customs of former times.
For so was the king’s manner - Some render it: “for so was the king’s business
laid before all that knew law ...”
CLARKE, "To the wise men - Probably the lawyers.
GILL, "Then the king said to the wise men that knew the times,.... Astrologers,
as Aben Ezra, that knew the fit time for doing anything; or that had knowledge of ancient
times, historians, well read in history, and knew things that had happened similar to
this:
for so was the king's manner towards all that knew law and judgment; it was
customary with him in any case of difficulty to have the opinion and advice of those that
were expert in the law, and well understood right and wrong. These are called by
Herodotus (t) the king's judges.
HE RY, ". 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 (Est_1:10), 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, Est_1:13, Est_1:14. In the multitude of such counsellors there is safety. Now
here is,
JAMISO 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 Est_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.

86. K&D 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.” ‫ר‬ ָ‫ב‬ ָ 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.” ‫יו‬ ָ‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ ‫ּב‬‫ר‬ ָ ַ‫ה‬ 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 ‫ין‬ ִ‫ד‬ָ‫ו‬ ‫ת‬ ָ ‫י‬ ֵ‫ע‬ ְ‫ּד‬‫י‬‫ל־‬ ָⅴ, before all that knew law and
judgment and those next him, or with ‫ים‬ ִ‫מ‬ ָ‫כ‬ ֲ‫ח‬ ַ‫,ל‬ 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. ‫ה‬ָ‫ּנ‬‫שׁ‬‫א‬ ִ‫ר‬ ‫ים‬ ִ‫ב‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫,ה‬ 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? ‫ת‬ ָ‫ד‬ ְⅴ, 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. ‫ה‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ ָ‫ע‬ with ְ ,
to inflict something on any one.
COFFMA , "Verse 13
"Then the king said to the wise men, who knew the times (for so was the king's
manner toward all that knew law and judgment; and next unto him were Carshena,
Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meshes, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes of
Persia and Media, who saw the king's face, and sat first in the kingdom), What shall
we do unto the queen Vashti, according to law, because she hath not done the
bidding of the king Ahashuerus by the chamberlains? 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 peoples that are in all the provinces of
the king Ahashuerus. For this deed of the queen will come abroad unto all women,

87. to make their husbands contemptible in their eyes, when it shall be reported, The
king Ahashuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she
came not. And this day will the princesses of Persia and Media who have heard of
the deed of the queen say the like to all the king's princes. So will there arise much
contempt and wrath. If it please the king, let there go forth 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 the king Ahashuerus; and let the
king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she. And when the king's
decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his kingdom (for it is
great), all the wives shall give to their husbands honor, both to great and small. And
the saying pleased the king and the princes; and the king did according to the word
of Memucan: 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 should speak according to the language
of his people."
othing could demonstrate more forcefully the low estate of women in the ancient
world than the brutal facts of this outrage against Vashti. In all the societies of
mankind where women are unprotected by the teachings of the Son of God, women
have invariably been reduced to the status so clearly visible in this chapter. Only in
Jesus Christ are women elevated to the respected and honored status they deserve;
and the great pity of our generation is that women are being wooed and persuaded
by political promises of all kinds to give up their worship of the Christ. They are
promised "equality" with men; but it is a specious `equality,' like that which the
women of Russsia got when they gave up even an imperfect Christianity for
communism. It turned out to be "equality" to carry the bricks, sweep the streets,
and work till they dropped dead in the fields. Let the women of America beware!
The seven princes of Persia and Media (Esther 1:14). In the book of Daniel, one
finds the expression, "The law of the Medes and the Persians"; but a little later in
this chapter, it reads, "The law of the Persians and the Medes." Why the difference?
In Daniel's day, the king was a Mede (Darius); so the Medes were mentioned first,
but now Xerxes, a Persian, was the ruler; so the Persians came first! The Medes and
the Persians were the two principal races that formed the Medo-Persian Empire,
but it was never two empires - only one.
It is of interest that Xerxes' letter to all the 127 ethnic groups in his empire was
addressed to each one of the groups in their native language. Also, there was added
that provision that every man should use only his native language in his own house,
which certainly presented a problem in homes where there were mixed marriages
with the races. Such a law was unenforceable. But as Keil noted, "Xerxes was the
author of many strange facts besides this."[12]
Halley and others held the opinion that one of the last actions of Xerxes before he
left on that four-year campaign against Greece was the deposition of Vashti, and
that, "He did not marry Esther until four years later in 478 B.C., after he returned
from the Grecian campaign."[13] This accounts for the four-year gap between this

88. chapter and the next one. This conclusion is fully supported by the writings of
Herodotus.
ELLICOTT, "(13) Which knew the times.—That is, who were skilled in precedents,
and could advise accordingly.
For so. . . .—Translate, for so was the king’s business laid, before . . .
TRAPP, "Esther 1:13 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:
Ver. 13. Then the king said to the wise men] What a sudden change is here! Ex
conviviis fiunt comitia, imo et convitia, saith an interpreter. The enraged king
forgets all his old love to Vashti, and breathes nothing else but reparation of his own
lost honour, and revenge upon his peerless 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, and kicked her out of the world, as
ero did his wife Octavia, for a less matter (Sueton. er.). He knew that anger is an
evil counsellor.
- qui non moderabitur irae,
Infectum velit esse dolor quod suaserit et mens (Horat.).
He that reineth not in his anger, shall do that in his haste whereof it shall repent him
by leisure, and could eat his nails to have it undone again. Ahasuerus therefore
calleth for his judges and counsellors, skilful in state matters.
Which knew the times] And what was best to be done in them. This skill they had
gotten by much reading of politics 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 councillors; Iudices Regios, the king’s judges,
Herodotus calleth them, and further saith, that they held their places for their lives,
unless they very much misbehaved themselves.
For so was the king’s manner] sc. To advise with them in matters of moment, but
not always to take their advice. The manner was, and the fundamental laws of the
land took order, for prevention of tyranny, that the kings of Persia should be ruled
by this grave senate of the kingdom, and not bring in an arbitrary government. But
Xerxes (who is this Ahasuerus) once at least (if not oftener), 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 seem to follow
mine own counsel, I have assembled you, and now do you remember, that it becomes

89. you rather to obey than advise (Val. Max. lib. 9, cap. 5).
Toward all that knew law and judgment] Of these Persian privy councillors it is
said, 1. That they were wise men. ow 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 laws, which they had ready, and
at their fingers’ ends, as we say. They knew also judgment, 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 far wider. This might become a
mercenary orator, but not a grave counsellor. The business was this; the king was
angry, and he meant to set him going: the queen was an eyesore, 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 with.
BE SO , "Esther 1:13. Which knew the times — The histories of former times,
what princes had done in such cases as this was, and were well skilled in the laws
and customs of their country, and were therefore able to give the king counsel in all
extraordinary and perplexed cases. Inasmuch, however, as the Persian kings did
nothing without their magi, or wise men, who were great pretenders to astrology,
some have supposed that men of this sort were now called in, to know whether it
was a proper time to do what the king had in his mind.
WHEDO , "13. The wise men, which knew the times — Men versed in the laws and
customs of their age and of former times, and, therefore, capable of giving proper
counsel on any matters of law or precedent.
So was the king’s manner — The regard of the Persians and Medes for their laws is
proverbial, and the kings were always careful to consult the wise men, who knew
law and judgment, before they proceeded to enact or execute any great or unusual
measure.
COKE, "Esther 1:13. The wise men, which knew the times— Some have inferred
from hence, that, as the Persian kings did nothing without their magi or wise men,
who were great pretenders to astrology, men of this sort were called to know
whether it was a proper time to set about the thing which the king had in his mind;
for, such was the superstition of the eastern people, that, as the satirist remarks.
——Quicquid Dixerit astrologus, credent a fonte relatum Ammonis. JUVE AL,
Sat. 6:
Such credit to astrologers is given, What they foretel is deem'd a voice from heaven.
DRYDE .
The explication, however, which Vitringa gives of the original is far from being
improbable; namely, that these were men well versed in ancient histories, and in the

90. laws and customs of their country, and were therefore able to give the king counsel
in all extraordinary and perplexed cases. Houbigant renders the passage thus: then
the king, speaking to the wise men, who knew the law and judgment (for the royal
decrees were then established, when they were laid before those who knew the law
and judgment; Esther 1:13 and for that reason he had by his side seven princes of
Persia, Carshena, &c.) said, Esther 1:15. What shall we do, &c. See Le Clerc, and 1
Chronicles 12:32.
LA GE, "Esther 1:13-15. The King’s Inquiry.—When the king said to the wise
men, which knew the times.—To know the times means to judge the times as did the
astrologers and magicians, according to the heavenly phenomena, and to give
counsel corresponding thereto, (comp. Daniel 2:27; Daniel 5:15; Isaiah 44:25; Isaiah
47:13; Jeremiah 50:35). But it also means in a general sense to be learned; for
according to the expressions following, these wise men were likewise those skilled in
the law. For Song of Solomon, adds the author, (was) the king’s manner toward all
that knew law and judgment.—‫ְֶך‬‫ל‬ֶ‫מּ‬ַ‫ה‬ ‫ַד‬‫ב‬ְ‫דּ‬ does not here mean the word of the king,
for then we might expect, instead of ‫ֵי‬‫נ‬ְ‫פ‬ִ‫ל‬, a preposition expressive of direction; but it
is a matter of the king, i.e., all that relates to the king, or what he undertakes.
PULPIT, "Then the king said to the wise men. Angry as he was, Ahasuerus had still
some power of self-restraint. He was in the presence of his whole court, and of a
great assembly of the people. It would not be seemly that he should vent his passion
in violent words, imprecations, or threats. His dignity required that he should at any
rate seem calm, and, instead of issuing any hasty order, should proceed deliberately
to consider what were the next steps to be taken. Xerxes appears to have been rather
fond of asking advice; and he now, in a sufficiently dignified way, required the
opinion of his "wise men" on the practical question, What was to be done to Vashti?
(see Esther 1:15). Which knew the times. i.e. persons who were well acquainted with
past times, and knew what it was customary to do on each occasion. For so was the
king's manner toward all that ]mew law and judgment. Rather, "For so was the
business of the king brought before such as knew law and judgment." Each matter
which concerned the king was submitted to learned persons for their opinion before
any actual step was taken. It is not a special practice of Ahasuerus, but a general
usage of the Persian monarchy, which m noticed.
14 and were closest to the king—Karshena,
Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena and
Memukan, the seven nobles of Persia and Media
who had special access to the king and were

91. highest in the kingdom.
BAR ES, "In Marsena we may perhaps recognize the famous Mardonius, and in
Admatha, Xerxes’ uncle, Artabanus.
The seven princes - There were seven families of the first rank in Persia, from
which alone the king could take his wives. Their chiefs were entitled to have free access
to the monarch’s person. See the margin reference note.
CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "And the next unto him,.... That sat next to the king, and was the chief in
dignity and authority under him:
was Carshena; and so everyone in their rank and order, as next mentioned:
Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan; who, according
to the latter Targum, were of different countries; the first of Africa, the second of India,
the third of Idumea, the fourth of Egypt, the fifth of Resen, Gen_10:12 which is framed
out of Marsena, who is dropped, and the last of Jerusalem, said to be Daniel; though the
former Targum makes him to be Haman:
the seven powers of Persia and Media; which custom of having seven counsellors
with the kings of Persia arose from the seven princes that slew Smerdis the pretender,
and made Darius Hystaspis king, the father of Xerxes:
which saw the king's face; were intimate and familiar with him, often in his
presence; yea, might go into it when they pleased, without the ceremony of being
introduced; which privilege the above persons reserved to themselves, when they placed
Darius on the throne, as Herodotus relates (u):
and which sat the first in the kingdom; next to the king, and were assisting to him
in the administration of government, see Ezr_7:14.
ELLICOTT, "(14) Marsena.—It has been suggested that we may possibly recognise
here Mardonius, the commander at Marathon; and in Admatha, Artabanus, the
uncle of Xerxes.

92. The seven princes.—There were seven leading families in Persia, the heads of which
were the king’s chief advisers, the “seven counsellors” of Ezra 7:14. Herodotus (iii.
84) speaks of the seven nobles who rose against the Pseudo-Smerdis as chief in the
nation.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:14 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;)
Ver. 14. And the next unto him was Carshena, &c.] These were his trusty and well-
beloved cousins, and counsellors, primi et proximi, first in the kingdom, and next
unto the king, without whom he was to have done no business of importance. But it
is recorded in story that they had no freedom nor liberty of council: for every one of
them had a plate or tile of gold to stand upon in the council house; and if he gave
counsel that the king thought well or; the plate of gold was given him for a reward;
but if he delivered anything contrary to the king’s mind, flagris caedebatur, he was
beaten with stripes. Lo, this was the manner of the Persian monarchs.
The seven princes] See Ezra 7:14.
Which saw the king’s 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 secrete themselves from their
subjects. o man might see the king uncalled for on pain of death, cum eius persona
sub specie maiestatis occuleretur, saith Justin. Only these seven might ordinarily
take the boldness to see his face; which lest Haman should do, they covered his face.
And which sat the first in the kingdom] Xenophon tells us that Cyrus, the first
Persian monarch, ordained that the nobles should sit before the king every man
according to his degree and dignity. Aben Ezra upon this text saith the same.
BE SO , "Esther 1:14. Which saw the king’s face — Who had constant freedom of
access to the king, and opportunities of familiar converse with him; which is thus
expressed, because the Persian kings were very seldom seen by their subjects. Who
sat the first in the kingdom — Who were his chief counsellors and officers.
WHEDO , "14. The seven princes — These seven, whose names are here given, are
among the wise men whom he consulted. They were his most intimate counsellors,
and the very highest nobles of the empire. See the note on Ezra 7:14. In the name
Admatha we may, perhaps, recognise Artabanus, the uncle of Xerxes, (Herod.,
Esther 7:10,) and in Marsena, his famous general Mardonius.
LA GE, "Esther 1:14. And the next to him or standing nearest to him,—thus the
explanation becomes clear, were Carshena, Shethar,etc.—There is no doubt that all
seven should be named as standing before the king, and not the first only.[F 15]
The sing. ‫ָיו‬‫ל‬ֵ‫א‬ ‫ֹכ‬ ‫ָר‬‫קּ‬ַ‫ה‬ has application to the second and third no less than to the first,

93. and Isaiah, therefore, equal to a neuter plural. The sense, however, is clear. By these
words, the wise were meant, the chief persons, who during and after consultation
were to have a word before the king in this matter. The clause which saw the king’s
face, expresses their intimate relation to the king, and their great and high
preference in an especially significant manner, since the approach to the king was
very difficult. The seven princes that had conspired against the Pseudo-Smerdis had
a perfect understanding that it should be permitted them to enter at any time into
the presence of the king, who had been elected from their midst, and that, too,
without previous announcement (see Herod, iii84). But that these princes themselves
formed the court either before or after the event spoken of here, although
mentioned “as the seven princes of the Medes and Persians,” is not to be assumed.
Those seven before mentioned did not, as did these, belong to the learned class, to
the selected counsellors of the king, although they had intercourse with the king.
These were the seven supreme counsellors (comp. Ezra 7:14), who formed a
complement to the seven Amshaspands.[F 16] The number seven, which is retained
by the Persians in Esther 1:5, and again in Esther 2:9, was originally instituted
because of the seven planets, or the weekly cycle, or finally with regard to the seven
Amshaspands. Perhaps its being composed of the numbers three and four gave it
significance. ‫ָה‬‫נ‬ֹ ‫אשׁ‬ ִ‫ר‬ ‫ִים‬‫כ‬ ְ‫ַיּשׁ‬‫ה‬, first =presiding, Isaiah, first of all, to preside,
constituting the highest authority. The feminine ‫ָה‬‫נ‬ֹ ‫אשׁ‬ ִ‫ר‬ is a substitute for the adverb
(comp. Genesis 33:2; umbers 2:9).
PULPIT, "And the next unto him was Carshena, Shethar, etc. The chief native
advisers of Xerxes in the early part of his reign appear to have been Mardonius and
Artabanus (Pers, Artapana), who was his uncle (Herod; 7.5-17). It is possible that
Mardonius may be here represented by Marsena, and Artabanus by Admatha; but
the names could only have taken these shapes by a large amount of corruption. The
other form have a general Persian air, but do not admit of even conjectural
identification. The seven princes of Persia and Media. Ezra assigns to the Persian
monarch seven special counsellors (Esther 7:1-10 :14), and Herodotus says that
there were seven leading families in Persia whose heads were specially privileged
(3:84). The title, however, "princes of Persia and Media," is not found anywhere but
here. Which saw the king's face. Among the privileges said by Herodotus to have
been reserved to the heads of the great families, one of the most valued was that of
free access to the monarch at all times, unless he were in the seraglio.
15 “According to law, what must be done to
Queen Vashti?” he asked. “She has not obeyed the
command of King Xerxes that the eunuchs have
taken to her.”

94. GILL, "What shall we do unto the Queen Vashti, according to law,.... The king
desired to know what law was provided in such a case as her's, and what to be done
according to it:
because she hath not performed the commandment of the king by the
chamberlains? as this was the crime, disobedience to his commands, he would have
those who had knowledge of the law consider what punishment was to be inflicted on
her for it, according to former laws, usages, and customs, or as reason and justice
required; and it being a festival, and they heated with wine, was no objection to a
consultation on this head; for it was the manner of the Persians at festivals, and when
inflamed with wine, to consult and determine about matters of the greatest moment (w);
yea, reckoned their counsels and decrees firmer than when made when they were sober
(x); so the ancient Germans (y).
HE RY, " The question proposed to this cabinet-council (Est_1:15): 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.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:15 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?
Ver. 15. What shall we do] Saith the king; who changeth the scene suddenly, the
banqueting house into a council chamber, the merry meeting into a most difficult
consultation, what to do with the queen, and how to repair the king’s honour so
much impaired by her. How easily can the Lord stain the pride of all glory, Isaiah
23:9, cross the world’s greatest darlings, give an unsavoury verdure to their sweetest
morsels, and make their very felicity miserable!
Unto the queen 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, Malachi 2:14, your fellow, and not your footstool; a yoke
fellow standing on even ground with you, though drawing on the left side, &c. This
you should do to the queen Vashti. But Plutarch notes of the Persians, that they
were none of the kindest of husbands, but harsh and jealous. And Athenaeus saith
the kings of Persia lord it over their wives, as if they were their handmaids, αγριοι
φυσει και χαλεποι (Plut.); ως δεσποτης αρχει της γαµετης ο βασιλευς~ (Athen. lib.

95. 13).
According to law] This you should do; retain 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 level
keel. This Archytas the Tarentine knew, and therefore being displeased with his
servants for their sloth, he flung 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 heinous 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.
PARKER 15-19, "The chamberlains were as much overturned in their calculations
as was the king. The question was—
"What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law, because she hath not
performed the commandment of the king Ahasucrus by the chamberlains?" ( Esther
1:15).
What shall be done with the opposing party? What shall be done with the
impracticable element? What shall be done with novelty of conduct? And the seven
chamberlains began to reason, saying,—
"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.
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" ( Esther 1:17-18).
It is an instructive sight to see statesmen and others puzzled over these social
problems. What shall be done with the enemy? Lock him up! What shall be done
with Vashti? Cut off her head! But will that end the matter? o, it will only begin it.
Beheading is an excellent way of propagating truth. The martyrs have made
Christian assembly in public and in daylight possible and agreeable. But said the
advisers—
"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" ( Esther 1:19).
Well, said Ahasuerus, perhaps that is the best that can be done: let us have Home

96. Rule: send the letters out at once, "to every people after their language, that every
man should bear rule in his own house." "Every man"—what a perversion of
language! "Bear rule,"—what is "rule?" audacity, effrontery, tyranny? "In his own
house"—who has a house of his own? Let us hope that no man is "in his own
house:" the house is a prison until somebody else divides it, shares it. Husband, the
house is not your own—except upon rent-day; then you can have it all. Wife, the
house is not your own—but the most of it is; it would be a poor, poor house if you
were to turn your back upon it The house belongs to all the people that are in it—
part to the husband, part to the wife, part to the children, part to the servants, right
through all the household line. Develop the notion of partnery, co-responsibility: let
every one feel a living interest in the place: then the house shall be built of living
stones, pillared with righteousness, roofed with love. It is here that Christianity
shines out with unique lustre. Obedience is right for all parties, but the obedience is
to be in the Lord, it is to be the obedience of righteousness, a concession to Wisdom
of Solomon , a toll paid to honour, which is to be returned in love and gratitude.
Christianity has made our houses homes. We owe everything that is socially
beneficent to Christianity. O Jesus, Man of Bethlehem, who didst make every house
radiant with morning light, dwell in our little house, break our bread, inspire our
domestic economy; we want to be thy guests: let the house be ours only because it is
thine!
LA GE, "Esther 1:15. First, here, the discourse of the king follows. They are asked:
What shall we do unto the queen Vashti according to law?‫ת‬ָ‫ְד‬‫כּ‬ is expressly prefixed
here, and that without the article; hence, legally.Because she hath not performed the
commandment of the king Ahasuerus.—Thus the king expresses himself, instead of
simply saying: my word; since this was just the matter that came into consideration,
that it was the king’s word. For the rest comp. Esther 1:12 and notes.
16 Then Memukan replied in the presence of the
king and the nobles, “Queen Vashti has done
wrong, not only against the king but also against
all the nobles and the peoples of all the provinces
of King Xerxes.
CLARKE, "Vashti - hath not done wrong to the king only - This reasoning or

97. 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.
GILL, "And Memucan answered before the king and the princes,.... Who was
the last, and perhaps the least and the youngest of the counsellors; it being appointed by
the king, according to the latter Targum that when his counsellors sat, the least should
give their counsel first; just as puisne judges, and the youngest peers with us, give their
opinion in a case first:
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; he means, by setting a bad example to their wives, as after explained; it is
an exaggeration of her crime, and made with a design to incense the king the more
against her.
HE RY 16-20, "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, Pro_19:13; Pro_27:15; and see Pro_21:9; Pro_25:24. When wives
despise their husbands, whom they ought to reverence (Eph_5:33), and contend for
dominion over those to whom they ought to be in subjection (1Pe_3:1), 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, Est_1:16-18. (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

98. they gave this judgment against her, that she come no more before the king, and this
judgment so ratified as never to be reversed, Est_1:19. 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 (Est_1:20); 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.
K&D 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 (‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ for ‫ל‬ ֶ‫)א‬ all women, to bring their husbands into contempt in their
eyes (the infin. ‫ּות‬‫ז‬ ְ‫ב‬ ַ‫ה‬ ְ‫ל‬ stating the result), while they will say,” etc. (the suffix of ‫ם‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫מ‬ፎ ְ
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 (‫ר‬ ָ‫ב‬ ָ , 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. ‫ף‬ ֶ‫צ‬ ֶ‫ק‬ is an outburst of anger; here, therefore, a provocation to wrath.
Bertheau makes the words ‫זק‬ ‫בז‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫ד‬ ְ‫וּכ‬ the object of ‫ה‬ָ‫נ‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫ּאמ‬ , 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 ‫ף‬ ֶ‫צ‬ ֶ‫ק‬
stand for ‫ף‬ ֶ‫צ‬ ֶ‫ק‬ ְ , 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 ‫ה‬ֶ‫י‬ ְ‫ה‬ִ‫:י‬ and contempt and wrath will be according to abundance. ‫י‬ ַ‫ד‬ ְⅴ is
a litotes for: more than enough. The object of ‫ה‬ָ‫נ‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫ּאמ‬ 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.).
ELLICOTT, "(16) Answered before the king.—Memuean, like a true courtier, gives
palatable advice to his master, by counsel which is the true echo of the king’s angry

99. question.
Done wrong.—Literally, dealt unfairly.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:16 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.
Ver. 16. And Memucan answered before the king] Heb. Mumchan; the junior likely,
and therefore spake first, the rest concurred, Esther 1:21. A bold man he was surely
(whatever else he was) that durst deliver his mind so freely of such a business, 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. In the midst of their cups they use to consult of the
greatest affairs. Here they accuse and condemn the queen unheard and unconvicted,
which was against all law, divine and human. King Henry VIII, though a boisterous
man, dealt more civilly with his first wife, Catherine of Spain, when he had a mind
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 kingdom.
Vashti 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 king’s
commandment was not obeyed. But was that a sufficient reason? Was the king’s
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 than men? Or say she had done wrong, must it needs
be out of perverseness? might it not be out of fear, modesty, or for some other civil
reason which she might allege for herself, if called to her trial? 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 than 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 wings, scandal and example; they prove both patterns
and privileges to their interiors, 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

100. it; there being nothing so well carried, but that it may be liable to some men’s
exceptions.
BE SO , "Esther 1:16. Vashti the queen hath done wrong to all the princes, &c. —
By giving their wives an example and encouragement to contemn and disobey their
husbands. It is a crime of a high nature, and therefore deserves an exemplary
punishment.
WHEDO , "16. Memucan answered — In this address of Memucan we have a
genuine specimen of an ingenious Persian courtier. We cannot but admire the skill
by which he merges the king’s cause into that of all the princes and husbands of the
empire.
LA GE, "Esther 1:16-20. The Courtier’s Reply.—Memucan, although last
mentioned among the seven, is spokesman, doubtless after the wise men had had a
consultation. For ‫מומכן‬ is here the same as ‫ממוכן‬ in Esther 1:14, as is shown by the
Keri. The assumption is natural that the Scriptio defectiva was really employed, and
that the ‫ו‬ was added later by the Masoretes. This is evident, further, in Esther 1:5,
where the full form is distinguished as having been added by them at the wrong
place. Feuardent thinks that, according to a more general custom, the last of the
seven responded first “lest he might seem to say aught in view of the favor and
protection of the chiefs and elders, but on the contrary out of mere liberty, and the
full determination of his own will and judgment.” But Memucan seems to have
spoken first not only here, but also above; hence he seems to have been chairman
(spokesman). He judges the offense of the queen very strictly in order to justify a
severe verdict. But he also correctly premises that the offenses of persons high in
office, on account of the influence which their examples will have, are punishable in
a very high degree. Vashti the queen hath not done wrong to the king only,etc. —ַ‫ָות‬‫ע‬
with ‫ַל‬‫ע‬ occurs only here.[F 17]
PULPIT, "And Memucan answered. We gather from Memucan's reply that the
Persian law had provided no penalty for the case in hand—had, in fact, not
contemplated it. He first argues the matter on general grounds of morality (Esther
1:16) and expediency (Esther 1:17, Esther 1:18), and then proposes the enactment of
a new law—a privilegium—assigning Vashti a special punishment for her contempt
of the king's order. The "decree" (Esther 1:20) would not have been necessary had
there already existed a law on the point. Vashti, the queen, hath not done wrong to
the king only. With the servility to be expected in an Oriental and a courtier,
Memucan throws himself wholly on the king's side—insinuates no word of blame
against his royal master, on whom in justice the whole blame rested; but sets himself
to make the worst he can of Vashti's conduct, which (he says) was a wrong not to
Ahasuerus only, but to the whole male population of the empire, the princes
included, who must expect their wives to throw off all subjection, in imitation of the
queen's example, if her conduct were allowed to go unpunished. As such a condition
of things would be intolerable, the king is urged to disgrace her publicly.

101. 17 For the queen’s conduct will become known to
all the women, and so they will despise their
husbands and say, ‘King Xerxes commanded
Queen Vashti to be brought before him, but she
would not come.’
GILL, "For this deed of the queen shall come abroad unto all women,.... It
will soon be spread all over the king's dominions, and reach the ears of the wives of all
his subjects, and become their general talk everywhere:
so that they shall despise their husbands in their eyes: make light of their
authority, refuse subjection to them, slight their commands, and neglect to yield
obedience to them, and so not give them the honour that is due unto them:
when it shall be reported, the King Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen
to be brought in before him, and she came not; was disobedient to his
commands, refused to go along with the chamberlains sent by the king to fetch her.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:17 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.
Ver. 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. Public persons are by Plutarch compared to mirrors, according to which
others dress themselves; to pictures in a glass window, wherein every blemish is
soon seen; to common wells, which if they be poisoned, 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, Ephesians 5:33. God
hath a barren womb for mocking Michel; when Sarah is crowned and chronicled
for this, that she obeyed her husband, calling him Lord. It is here taken for

102. confessed, that Vashti 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 doctors
tell us she was? King Asa deposed his grandmother, Maacha; but that was for
idolatry. Our Henry VIII 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 Vashti done? Condemned she is without reprival; and the country
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?
18 This very day the Persian and Median women
of the nobility who have heard about the queen’s
conduct will respond to all the king’s nobles in the
same way. There will be no end of disrespect and
discord.
BAR ES, "Translate it: “Likewise shall the princesses of Persia and Media, which
have heard of the deed of the queen, say this day unto all the king’s princes.”
CLARKE, "The ladies of Persia - ‫שרות‬ saroth, the princesses; but the meaning is
very well expressed by our term ladies.
GILL, "Likewise shall the ladies of Persia and Media say this day unto the
king's princes, which have heard of the deed of the queen,.... From
henceforward they will give a like answer to their husbands, when they lay their
commands upon them, as Vashti has to the king; they will tell them to their faces they
will not obey their orders:
thus shall there arise too much contempt and wrath; there will be in wives a
general contempt of their husbands, which will cause discord and strife, quarrels, wrath
and anger; contempt on one part, wrath on the other, and contention between both.

103. ELLICOTT, "(18) Translate, and this day shall the princesses of Persia and Media,
which heard the affair of the queen, say . . .
Contempt and wrath.—Presumably, contemptuous defiance on the part of the
wives, and anger on the part of the husbands.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:18 [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.
Ver. 18. Likewise shall the ladies of Persia and Media 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 less. 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, valde volunt, what they will do they will do
contra gentes, saith another. And for talking and telling their minds, the rabbis have
a proverb, that ten kabs (measures) of speech descended into the world, and the
women took away nine of them. These ladies of Persia and Media were feasting with
the queen when the king sent for her, ubi quid factum est? garritur, potitatur,
saltitatur, 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, whatever 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 murderer), that he
would not be pacified by her strange present (four hundred cows, and one bull, all
milk-white, except only the ears, which were red) sent unto the queen (Speed. 572).
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 coniugium marriage, shall become coniurgium; a
dispute, and the house they dwell together in shall be no better than 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 Sulla say, I had been happy if I had never
been married.
BE SO , "Esther 1:18. 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.
WHEDO , "18. Ladies — Princesses; those who were with their husbands at the
court of Ahasuerus, or at Shushan, where they would at once (this day) hear of
Vashti’s deed, that is, both her act and words, and be emboldened to say to their
lords what Vashti had said to the king.
Contempt and wrath — Contempt on the part of wives for their husbands, and

104. consequent wrath or anger (compare Esther 1:12) on the part of the affronted
husbands. This verse should be rendered thus: And this day will the princesses of
Persia and Media, who have heard of the word of the queen, say (like words) to all
the princes of the king, and (there will be) enough contempt and wrath.
LA GE, "Esther 1:18. (Likewise) shall the ladies of Persia and Media say this day
unto all the king’s princes.‫ֶה‬‫ז‬ַ‫ה‬ ‫ַיּוֹם‬‫ה‬ is used in its direct meaning. What the speaker
means to say Isaiah, as regards the rest of the lower women, who were referred to in
Esther 1:17. It may take a long time before the new law of the court shall have come
to the knowledge of all, because some will hear of it later. But the princesses who
live at the court and who have immediate news of Vashti’s conduct, will relate what
has been indicated in Esther 1:17. After ‫ָה‬‫נ‬ ְ‫ַר‬‫מ‬‫ֹא‬ ‫תּ‬ the same sentence is to be
understood as follows: ‫ם‬ ָ‫ְר‬‫מ‬‫ְאָ‬‫כּ‬ in Esther 1:17; for the last words of the verse : Thus
(shall there arise) too much contempt and wrath, cannot be construed into the
definition of an object in view, as Bertheau would have it, as if the Heb. stood before
‫י‬ַ‫ְד‬‫כּ‬ only as an attachment to the long phrase, but these form a separate sentence.
The predicate; thus there shall arise, must be supplied. ‫י‬ַ‫ְד‬‫כּ‬, really for a sufficiency,
is by litotes, e.g., “more than enough.”
PULPIT, "The ladies. Rather, "the princesses." Translate the whole passage as
follows:—"Likewise shall the princesses of Persia and Media, which have heard of
the deed of the queen, say this day to all the king's princes." ot only will the wives
of the common people get hold of the story, and quote Vashti's example as often as
they wish to disobey their husbands, but our own wives too will disobey us on the
same pretext, and will begin forthwith "this day." Too much contempt and wrath.
Literally, "sufficient;" but the meaning is that given by our translators—"quite
enough," "more than enough." Contempt on the part of the wives; wrath on the
part of the husbands.
19 “Therefore, if it pleases the king, let him issue a
royal decree and let it be written in the laws of
Persia and Media, which cannot be repealed, that
Vashti is never again to enter the presence of King
Xerxes. Also let the king give her royal position to
someone else who is better than she.

105. BAR ES, "That it be not altered - Compare the margin reference. This was the
theory. Practically, the monarch, if he chose, could always dispense with the law. It was
therefore quite within his power to restore Vashti to her queenly dignity notwithstanding
the present decree, if he so pleased.
CLARKE, "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.
GILL, "If it please the king, let there go a royal commandment from him,....
Not only a proclamation made, but a law enacted and published by royal authority:
and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and Medes that it be not
altered; for so it was, that when a law was made, and signed, and sealed, and registered
among the laws of the kingdom, it remained unalterable, Dan_6:8, this precaution
Memucan took for his own safety; for had the king acted upon his advice, without
passing it into a law in such form, he might change his mind, and recall Vashti, who
would not fail of venting her wrath upon the counsellor, and so he be in danger of losing
his life for it:
that Vashti come no more before King Ahasuerus; but be entirely divorced,
never to be received any more:
and let the king give her royal estate unto another that is better than she; or
"to her companions" (z); that was with her in the house of the women in the seraglio;
one that was fairer, as the Targum, or of a better disposition than her; let her be made
queen, and enjoy all the honour, and dignity, and marks of royalty Vashti did; her
throne, her crown, and royal apparel, as it is interpreted in an ancient Jewish writing (a).
K&D 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 (‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ ‫ּוב‬ 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.
ָ‫עוּת‬ ְ‫,ר‬ her companion, is any other woman, Vashti being here regarded merely as a

106. woman. ‫ה‬ ָ‫וב‬ ַ‫ה‬ 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.” ‫ן‬ָ ְ‫ת‬ ִ is
according to the Keri to be pointed as the constructive state, ‫ם‬ַ ְ‫ת‬ ִ . The expression ‫ה‬ ָ‫שׂ‬ ָ‫ע‬
‫ן‬ָ ְ‫ת‬ ִ 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.
ELLICOTT, "(19) That it be not altered.—Literally, that it pass not away. The
order having been committed to writing was, in theory at any rate, immutable. The
best illustration is the well-known case of Daniel; see also below (Esther 8:8).
Probably a strong-willed monarch would interpret this inviolability rather freely.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:19 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.
Ver. 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 counsellors, he thus modestly prefaceth to
his ensuing harsh and hard sentence. He knew well enough it would please the king
at present, in the mind 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 laws of the Persians] Which the king himself
could not repeal, Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:15, but once passed and registered, they
remained binding for ever. I have read of a people among whom the laws they had
lasted in force but for three days at utmost. This was a fault in the other extreme.
Laws are to be made with due deliberation, Legem dicimus, νοµον, quasi µενοντα
νοον (Plato), and then to be established, and not altered without very great reason,
as sometimes there is, since
Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.
That Vashti come no more before king Ahasuerus] But be absolutely deposed and
divorced. Here was no proportion between the offence and the sentence. This
judgment 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

107. 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 than death. High seats, as they are never
but uneasy; 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.
BE SO , "Esther 1:19. If it please the king — Which this cunning politician knew
it would do. That it be not altered — Which caution was necessary for his own
security, lest the king’s anger should cool, and the queen should recover her former
state, and the king’s favour, in which case this lord would, most likely, have fallen
under his displeasure: but the order being once registered as a law of the kingdom,
the king could not alter his decree without disgracing himself.
WHEDO , "19. That it be not altered — Literally, and it shall not pass away; that
is, it shall remain as a precedent, and be a permanent law for such matters in the
empire. On the proverbial inviolability of the laws of the Medes and Persians,
compare the marginal references. It originated, probably, in a desire to enhance in
the national mind the sacredness of law, and also to forestall capricious and hasty
changes in administration. But it was a defective and pernicious principle, making
no provision against the capricious enactment of rash and harmful laws, and then
allowing no repeal nor modification of them. Practically, however, it was often
evaded, and the monarch found some way to make it lawful to do as he pleased.
Her royal estate — The queenly privileges and honours with which the king had
been pleased to distinguish her.
Unto another — Hebrew, her female companion. This expression indicates that she
herself was but a concubine, for the monarch’s legitimate marriage with one who
was to be principal wife, and who, according to Persian law, (Herod., 3:84,) could be
taken only from one of the seven princely families of the empire, would hardly be
spoken of in this way.
LA GE, "Esther 1:19. This contains the verdict.—If it please the king, let there go a
royal commandment from him.— ‫על‬ ‫טוֹב‬ occurs often in our book as also in
ehemiah 2:5. ‫ְכוּת‬‫ל‬ַ‫מ‬ ‫ַר‬‫ב‬ְ‫,דּ‬ a word of the kingdom or a king’s word (comp. Esther
1:8), hence first of all a royal order.And let it be written among the laws of the
Persians and the Medes, that it be not altered,i.e., let it have express legal authority,
so that it must remain unaltered (comp. Daniel 6:9).[F 18]That Vashti come no
more before king Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal estate unto another that
is better than she.— ‫ָה‬‫כ‬ָ‫ל‬ְ‫מ‬ַ‫מ‬=‫ְכוּת‬‫ל‬ַ‫מ‬ (comp. Esther 1:2), royal state, royal government,
here means royal highness, dignity, ‫הּ‬ָ‫עוּת‬ ְ‫ר‬ = her female companions.‫,טוֹב‬ as to its
connections, is especially referable to obedience. It may be that Vashti was hated as
being a proud, assuming person. But the severity of the sentence against her is

108. explainable also in this, that there remained no alternative to the judges either to
declare her innocent, which, as respects Ahasuerus, they could not do, or to make
her for ever harmless. Even if she had again obtained an influence with the king,
they would have had to expect her wrath.
PULPIT, "A royal commandment. Literally, "a command of the kingdom"—i.e. a
public, not a domestic, order. Under ordinary circumstances such a matter as the
disgrace of a favourite wife would have been settled in the secrecy of the seraglio,
without calling general attention to it. In Memu-can's opinion, the publicity of
Vashti's disobedience had made it expedient that she should be disgraced publicly.
Let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes. A sentence upon an
individual was not a very suitable thing to add to a national code of laws; but we see
from Daniel (Daniel 6:8, Daniel 6:9) that decrees of quite a temporary character
were sometimes attached to the code for the express purpose of rendering them
unalterable; and so it seems to have been in this instance. Unto another. Literally, as
in the margin, "unto her companion." Memucan assumes that one of the existing
inmates of the seraglio will be elevated into the place vacated by Vashti. This was
the ordinary course, but on the present occasion was not followed.
20 Then when the king’s edict is proclaimed
throughout all his vast realm, all the women will
respect their husbands, from the least to the
greatest.”
GILL, "And when the king's decree which he shall make shall be published
throughout all his empire,.... As it was proper it should, since the report of the
queen's deed would be made everywhere:
for it is great; the empire consisting of one hundred and twenty seven provinces, Est_
1:1, Aben Ezra and Abendana interpret it, "though" it is great, yet the decree should be
published throughout; the latter observes, that this may respect the king's decree; and so
the Targum is,"for his decree is great;''it respecting a matter of great importance, and
relating to a great personage, and would have great effect on the minds of persons, when
it was observed that one so great was treated in this manner: and therefore
all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small;

109. speaking respectfully to them, yielding a ready and cheerful obedience to all their
commands; which would be done to princes and peasants, to high and low, to every rank
of men.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:20 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.
Ver. 20. And when the king’s decree that he shall make shall be published] But why
should any such thing be published at all, unless the king be ambitious of his own
utter dishonour? Is there none wiser than other, but that the king must betray 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 plaster, and
then covereth it with his hand, that it may stick the faster, work the better. Had
Ahasuerus been wise, the world had been never the wiser for anything that Vashti
had done, &c. But Memucan hath some colour for his bad counsel, a goodly veil to
cast over it.
All the wives shall give to their husbands honour] They shall not dare to do
otherwise, unless they mean to be likewise divorced. But will terror 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 domineer 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 signify 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 Peter 3:7.
BE SO , "Esther 1:20-21. All the wives shall give to their husbands honour, &c. —
one will dare to disobey, when they hear that the greatness of the queen could not
preserve her from such a heavy punishment. The saying pleased the king and the
princes — Partly because their own authority and interest were concerned in it; and
especially by the singular providence of God, who designed to bring about his own
great work by this small occasion.
LA GE, "Esther 1:20. We here notice the consequence of the decree of the king.—
And when the king’s decree, which he shall make, shall be published —all the wives
shall give to their husbands honour,etc. The predicate ‫ע‬ַ‫מ‬ְ‫ִשׁ‬‫נ‬ is chosen, since it makes
a presupposition for the ‫נו‬ְ‫ִתּ‬‫י‬ which is expressed. It is first of all neuter: when it shall
be published (heard). ‫ָם‬‫גּ‬ְ‫ִת‬‫פּ‬, as in Ezra 4:17. ‫ה‬ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫ע‬ַ‫י‬ ‫ר‬ֶ‫שׁ‬ֲ‫א‬ may mean: which he shall
execute, inasmuch as this decree would be sanctioned by the example of the king
himself; otherwise: which he shall decree. Memucan reminds him of the greatness of

110. the empire, since the success of the punishment and its importance is connected with
it. ‫ָדוֹל‬‫גּ‬ִ‫מ‬ְ‫ל‬, as in Esther 1:5.
PULPIT, "The king's decree. The "commandment" of the preceding verse is here
given the formal name of pithgam, "decree," which is a Persian word, used also in
Ezra (Ezra 4:17; Ezra 5:7, Ezra 5:11). For it is great. These words seem at first sight
superfluous. Perhaps their force is this—Let a decree be made, and then, great as
the empire is, the lesson will be taught to all: otherwise there will be many to whom
it will never penetrate.
21 The king and his nobles were pleased with this
advice, so the king did as Memukan proposed.
GILL, "And the saying pleased the king and the princes,.... The king, and the
other six princes and counsellors, approved of the proposal, and unanimously agreed to
it:
and the king did according to the word of Memucan; passed a law according to
his advice, and signed and sealed it, and registered it among the laws of the kingdom,
not to be revoked.
HE RY 21-22, "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
(Est_1:21, Est_1:22): 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.
K&D, "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 ‫ּות‬‫י‬ ְ‫ה‬ ִ‫,ל‬ 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

111. 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 ‫ּו‬ ַ‫ע‬ ‫ּון‬‫שׁ‬ ְ‫ל‬ ִⅴ we
should read ‫ּו‬ ִ‫ע‬ ‫ה‬ֶ‫ּו‬‫שׁ‬‫ל־‬ ָⅴ, 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 ‫ם‬ ִ‫ע‬ ‫ה‬ָ‫ו‬ ָ‫,שׁ‬ but
only ְ‫ל‬ ‫ה‬ָ‫ו‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ (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.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:21 And the saying pleased the king and the princes; and the king
did according to the word of Memucan:
Ver. 21. And the saying pleased the king] Pity but itching ears should have clawing
counsellors. Memucan was a fit helve for such a hatchet; and his advice fit lettuce
for such lips. What marvel that such a smooth counsellor pleased the king, when as
he had before given place to two such bad counsellors - Wine and Anger?
And the princes] Who perceived very likely by the king’s looks and gestures, that he
was much taken and tickled with Memucan’s counsel; which they therefore second
and subscribe to. How rare a jewel in a prince’s ear is a faithful counsellor, 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 VI, &c.
There is safety in the multitude of counsellors, modo audeant quae sentiant, as the
orator saith (Cic. pro Milone), so they dare speak out, and will not spare to do it.
And the king did according to the word of Memucan] Dicto citius, it was forthwith
done. Vashti is all on the sudden divorced, and the foolish king publicly shamed. But

112. all this was of the Lord, that Esther might be advanced, and the Church relieved. So
there was a wheel within a wheel, which the wicked discern not, nor the saints
consider. God oft wraps himself in a cloud, and will not be seen till afterwards. All
God’s dealings will appear beautiful in their seasons; though for the present we see
not the contiguity and concatenation of one thing with another.
LA GE, "Esther 1:21-22. The Decree Issued. The king accepts the proffered
counsel and rejects Vashti; indeed he does even more. In order that her punishment
may become as well-known as her offense, he sends letters into all the provinces;
[F 19] and in order that these may be intelligible, he writes according to the
language of every province, and to every people in their own language.[F 20]That
every man should bear rule in his own house, and that it should be published
according to the language of every people.—‫ְיוֹת‬‫ה‬ִ‫ל‬ does not really indicate the
substance of what was written —this consists of the rejection of Vashti and the
reasons therefor —but only its aim. Yet this object, strange as it may have sounded,
has nevertheless received sufficient prominence. Feuardent thinks that the edict may
be explained on the ground that there was too much petticoat government in Persia.
But there exists no proof of such an assertion. It is true, in Esther 5:10, that Haman
drew his wife into the council of consultation, but his friends first. It may be asked,
what is the sense and connection of the phrase, and (it) should be published
according to the language of every people. Older commentators and also Keil find
therein only a command, that a man in his own house should speak his own native
language. Hence if he was possessed of one or more foreign wives, who spoke a
different language, they should be compelled to learn his language and speak only in
it. Thereby the man was to show his authority as master of his own house.[F 21]
But if we apprehend this decree in such a general manner, it would not only have
been a very peculiar, but also a separate edict, and it would apply in fact to the
rejection of queen Vashti, neither in its object, nor yet in its communication. It
might much better have read thus, “that the wives speak the language of their
husbands’ people.” Hence Bertheau, according to Hitzig’s advice, changed ‫ַמּוֹ‬‫ע‬ ‫ְשׁוֹן‬‫ל‬ִ‫כּ‬
to ‫ִמּוֹ‬‫ע‬ ‫ֶה‬‫ו‬ֹ ‫ָל־שׁ‬‫כּ‬: (and every one) shall speak what to him is appropriate; but this would
introduce a thought foreign to the subject, and besides ‫שוה‬ according to Esther 3:8,
should have ְ‫ל‬ before it. Perhaps the meaning is this: that he speak, etc., in short,
that he have the right to use his people’s language in his own house, even though he
have a foreign wife; moreover that it is obligatory upon his wife to so far learn the
language of her husband that she may understand the orders he may give in it. This
phrase receives further light from the consequence which would follow upon the
usurpation of the wife, since she would then compel her husband to learn her own
language.
PULPIT, "The king did according to the word of Memucan. This expression must
not be pressed too closely. It does not imply more than that Memucan's advice was
followed in a general way—Vashti disgraced, and the grounds of her disgrace
published throughout the provinces. We cannot be sure that the decree was "written
among the laws of the Persians and the Medes." Even if it was, it was always
possible for a Persian king to give himself a dispensation from the law (see Herod;

113. 3:58).
22 He sent dispatches to all parts of the kingdom,
to each province in its own script and to each
people in their own language, proclaiming that
every man should be ruler over his own
household, using his native tongue.
BAR ES, "He sent letters - The Persian system of posts incidentally noticed in the
present book Est_3:12-15; Est_8:9-14, is in entire harmony with the accounts of
Herodotus and Xenophon.
Into every province according to the writing thereof - The practice of the
Persians to address proclamations to the subject-nations in their own speech, and not
merely in the language of the conqueror, is illustrated by the bilingual and trilingual
inscriptions of the Achaemenian monarchs, from Cyrus to Artaxerxes Ochus, each
inscription being of the nature of a proclamation.
The decree was not unnecessary. The undue influence of women in domestic, and even
in public, matters is a feature of the ancient Persian monarchy. Atossa completely ruled
Darius. Xerxes himself was, in his later years, shamefully subject to Amestris. The
example of the court would naturally infect the people. The decree therefore would be a
protest, even if ineffectual, against a real and growing evil.
And that it should be published ... - Render it: “and speak the language of his
own people;” in the sense that the wife’s language, if different from her husband’s,
should in no case be allowed to prevail in the household.
CLARKE, "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

114. many additions to this book in the principal versions, that we know not what might have
made a part of it originally.
GILL, "For he sent letters unto all the king's provinces,.... The one hundred and
twenty seven provinces, Est_1:1, which, according to the Targum, were written and
sealed with his own seal; which is very probable:
into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people
after their language; that is, these letters were written in the language, and in the
characters in which that language was written, used in each of the provinces to which
these letters were sent, that they might be easily read and understood by all: the sum of
which was:
that every man should bear rule in his own house; be prince, lord, and master
there, and his commands obeyed, not only by his children and servants, but by his wife
also:
and that it should be published according to the language of every people;
but as this is expressed, or at least implied, in the first clause of this verse, it should
rather be rendered, "and that he should speak according to the language of his people";
and so is the latter Targum; it seems as if a man, who had married a woman in another
country, in complaisance to her had neglected his own native tongue, and used hers in
the family, by which means he lost, or seemed to lose, his authority in it: now, to guard
against this, this part of the law was made; and, according to Jarchi, the husband was to
compel his wife to learn and speak his language, if she was a foreigner; to which agrees
the first Targum, which paraphrases the whole thus,"that a man rule over his wife, and
oblige her to speak according to the language of her husband, and the speech of his
people;''and, in later times, Bahram Gaur forbid any other language, besides the Persian,
to be used within his port, either in speaking or writing (b).
ELLICOTT, "(22) He sent letters.—The Persian Empire was the first to possess a
postal system (see esp. Herod. vii. 98). The Greek word for “compel,” in Matthew
5:41; Matthew 27:32, is simply a corruption of the Persian word for the
impressment of men and horses for the royal service.
That every man should . . .—The following words are, literally, be ruling in his own
house, and speaking according to the language of his own people. The former clause
may probably be taken as a proof of the existence of an undue amount of female
influence generally in Persia; the second clause is more doubtful. The English
Version does distinct violence to the Hebrew, perhaps because the literal rendering
yielded a somewhat peculiar sense. Taking the words exactly as they stand, they can
only mean that in a house where two or more languages are used, from the presence
of foreign wives, the husband is to take care that his own language is not supplanted
by any of theirs. This is intelligible enough, but is perhaps rather irrelevant to what
goes before.
TRAPP, "Esther 1:22 For he sent letters into all the king’s provinces, into every

115. 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.
Ver. 22. That every man should have rule in his own house] Aequum sane edictum,
modo 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 condemn. 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 than the king, and in private houses the wife than the
husband, as Diodorus Siculus reporteth? Or had they a mind 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 king’s rash and unlawful putting away of his wife, for so light a cause; like as
Cambyses, their recent king, having a mind 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, since they are apt enough to do so without bidding.
Therefore St Paul, after, wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, doth not
say, and subjoin, husbands rule over your wives, but, husbands love your wives, and
be not bitter against them, Colossians 3:19.
And that it should be published according to the language of every people] That so
being particularly understood, it might appear more authentic and weighty, and so
take away the hatred from the lawgivers 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.
BE SO , "Esther 1:22. That it should be published according to the language of
every people — That all sorts of persons, not men only, but women also, might
understand it, and therefore be inexcusable if they did not comply with it.
WHEDO , "22. He sent letters — Herodotus (viii, 98) thus describes the Persian
system of letter carrying: “There is nothing mortal that proceeds faster than these
messengers. They detail and arrange so many men and horses as there are days’
journeys, a horse and a man being appointed for each day’s journey, and neither
snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor night prevents them from finishing their allotted race
as soon as possible. The first racer delivers his message to the second, and the
second to the third, and so on.”

116. Every province according to the writing thereof — That is, according to its written
alphabetical character in use in each province.
To every people after their language — According to their vernacular dialect. The
same alphabetical character might be used, as is still common, for several different
languages. The bilingual and trilingual inscriptions of Persia and other oriental
lands are standing evidences and illustrations of the ancient practice of writing
public documents in various characters and languages.
That every man should bear rule in his own house — o doubt the king’s letters
contained much more than this, but we have here only the general purport of the
royal decree. Rawlinson remarks that “the undue influence of women in domestic,
and even in public, matters is a feature of the ancient Persian monarchy. Herodotus
(vii, 8) tells us that Atossa completely ruled Darius. Xerxes himself was, in his later
years, shamefully subject to Amestris. (Ibid., 9:111.) The example of the court would
naturally infect the people. The decree would, therefore, seem to have been not so
much an idle and superfluous act as an ineffectual protest against a real and
growing evil.” (Com. in loco.) If the decree itself be considered unnecessary and
absurd, let it be remembered that this was not the only absurd thing which Xerxes
did.
And that it should be published — Our version is here faulty. The latter part of the
verse should be rendered, That every man rule in his own house, and speak
according to the language of his own people. That is, not only should every man be
lord in his family, but he should require his own native language to be used by his
wife and children. Multitudes throughout the empire married foreign wives, and the
use of different languages in the same household may have often led to other
troubles besides those mentioned in ehemiah 13:24. Foreign wives were therefore
required to learn the language of their husbands, in order that the husband’s pre-
eminence and authority in his own house might be the better maintained. Some
critics have sought to emend the text, so as to make it read, speak all that suited
him; but this reading is purely conjectural, sustained by no parallel, and yields but a
trivial thought.
PULPIT, "For he sent. Rather, "and he sent." Besides publishing the decree,
Ahasuerus sent letters prescribing certain things, viz.:—
1. That every man should bear rule in his own house; and,
2. That every man should speak his own language in his family, and not that of his
wife, if it were different.
This is the plain meaning of the existing text, which cannot bear either of the senses
suggested in the Authorised Version.

117. LA GE, DOCTRI AL A D ETHICAL
On Esther 1:1-12. 1. Ever and anon the question arises, whether there is not upon
earth somewhere, a condition of true satisfaction and unclouded happiness. One
very much desires such a state of things, and one is tempted to believe it, especially
when regard is had to the most beautiful dreams of the past, which had the
appearance of bright promises. But this is not all. In spite of all assurances and
experiences to the contrary, one is ever inclined to think that the world, and
especially its lords, could give an affirmative answer to our question.
At the very beginning of our book there is unfolded to our eyes a picture full of
riches and affluence, full of splendor and glory. Whatever is beautiful to look upon,
whatever is enjoyable to the taste, whatever could rejoice the heart and elevate the
soul, is here combined. A ruler, whose height of power leaves hardly anything to be
desired, who has united under his sceptre the most powerful, the richest, and most
celebrated nations, from India to Æthiopia, has called together the chief men of the
various countries, and they are gathered around him in the beautifully situated and
magnificently built city of the lilies, the most beautiful of all Persian residences
(comp. ehemiah 1:1), there to revel in luxury and enjoyment. Hebrews, it seems, is
happy to be their ruler, and they are happy as his subjects. At the same time the
women are also called to this festive enjoyment. The higher in station mingle on
equal terms with those lower, and all celebrate and enjoy the occasion together. It
seems as if every one must feel happy in his place. Yet the old adage asserts itself
that the world, the rich, the high, the proud world possesses least of that which we
here seek. It may be said, indeed, of this world alone, that it passes away with all its
pleasures, and that its apparent wealth at last becomes sheer poverty. Ahasuerus,
who is admired because of his greatness and lauded as happy by so many, is deeply
humiliated; a woman dares to defy his command, and his joy is changed to anger
and chagrin. Again, all the efforts that he makes to remove the object of his
disappointment serve but to complete his misfortune. However widely and
effectually his power may be felt, he is still only a Prayer of Manasseh, and as such
he has human needs. The empire cannot displace his house. All the wealth of earth
cannot give him the joy that one person does, who submits herself entirely to him.
Her he cannot gain by his measures, but rather she becomes for ever lost to him by
those very measures. Vashti, however, this second person at the highest point of
worldly glory, now sees the crown of her exalted station and her happiness torn to
pieces. For her the day of highest joy becomes the day of her misfortune. The
subjects; who had to bear the cost of these feastings, must have groaned and sighed
the most in advance, instead of rejoicing. Feuardent: “David once called water
blood, because it had been drawn at the manifest risk of life on the part of his

118. chieftains, and he therefore held it wrong to drink of it. But. … from another’s hide,
as the proverb goes, since shoe-strings are cut by chiefs.”
1. There is but One, who—Himself ever blessed—can make all kings and nations
truly happy with the great wealth of His treasury. He also will bring to pass that if
those whose beauty ought to be His honor and joy—mankind, whose love would
have given Him more pleasure than a man would find in the love of his wife— if
these will not come to Him, will not honor nor rejoice Him, indeed if all but one
family desire each to go their own way; yet has this its ground in His highest, in His
most liberal greatness, by which He has found means from the very beginning to
unfold more and more the wealth of His glorious kingdom, in contrast with such
stubbornness, and especially to reveal to us the riches of His grace.
2. Ahasuerus, or Xerxes, who had received this great and powerful kingdom from
Darius his father, and who now governed it in its fullest extent, possessed the
greatest glory among the people of his own time and those succeeding, as being the
greatest and most powerful king. And in the feast, which in our chapter he
instituted, he made it his special business to maintain this distinction to its fullest
extent. But it is this very feast that while it reveals his greatness, also reminds us of
his weakness. Perhaps even then many of his friends felt that he did not quite
Deuteronomy -serve all the distinction that he claimed for himself. By reason of his
thoughtlessness and folly— and this may not have been the first time when these
were manifested, though he now revealed them in a more public manner before the
eyes of his princes—he demanded of the queen what was against all custom and
good breeding. This lapse in moral strength of which he was guilty—in that he lived
more for sensual gratification than for the duties of his government—especially
reveals the fact that, though never so mighty a king and ruler, yet in fact in himself
he was nothing more than a poor slave.
3. While Ahasuerus was intent to show how far the limits of his empire extended, by
calling to his court the governors of the most distant provinces, he found in close
proximity, yea, in his very house, insubordination to his will. Though he knew how
to punish it, yet he could not conquer it, nor turn it into obedience to his wishes.
There Isaiah, therefore, a power higher than that of Prayer of Manasseh, were he
even the mightiest ruler of earth. Though the latter may prescribe laws and issue
commands, the former has long ago set in order His ordinances, indeed stamped
them on the very face of nature so deeply, so ineffaceably and unchangeably, that in
contrast with human commands, they appear holy and irrefragable, and in case of a
conflict bear away the palm of victory. To obey human laws may be a sacred duty;
but to follow dutifully the eternally divine ordinances, is a holy and most glorious
privilege, which no one must permit to be abrogated. To disobey human commands
may be dangerous, may bring temporal disadvantage, but to despise God’s laws is
degrading, and will bring eternal ruin. If an earthly ruler with his laws come into
conflict with divine ordinances, he will begin a war in which he will finally be
destroyed. Feuardent: “ ot even the heathens were unaware, under the instruction
of Plutarch, that a man ought to govern his wife as the soul does the body, not as a

119. master does a beast.”
Starke: “Great pleasure is often followed by equally great displeasure. Occasions of
joyous feasting commonly end in sorrow ( 1 Maccabees 9:41). Wine disperses sorrow
and rejoices the heart of man ( Sirach 31:32 sq.). In a drinking-company all kinds of
useless counsels are generally brought forth ( Wisdom of Solomon 2:10). Men with
men, women with women, thus it was among the heathen, and so should it also be
among us Christians. How much that is unchaste would thereby be avoided, which
is usually found in such gatherings ( Sirach 19:2). Although beauty is a gift of God,
still one should not make a boast of it nor yet be proud ( Proverbs 31:30). Pride
occasions much sorrow, and often plunges others into destruction ( Sirach 3:30;
Proverbs 29:23; 1 Peter 5:5).”
On Esther 1:13-22. 1. The wise men, on whom Ahasuerus depends to give a decision
as to how Vashti should be treated, are both judges and masters of ceremonies. They
are to execute law and justice, but they are also to see to it that court-etiquette be
maintained. Instead of at once following out the suggestions of his wrath, and doing
what he thinks best to be done, Ahasuerus subjects himself to an objective
willpower, namely that of law and custom. This in itself is great and beautiful. This
is the victory of culture over crudeness and passion. But in the manner in which this
is done here, it amounts to nothing after all. We seem to feel in advance that nothing
good will come of it. It sounds to us as if the advice of Memucan came from a court
of judgment: where what was held to be light is changed into darkness, and what
was deemed to be sweet is changed into bitterness. The queen’s Acts, which was at
the most but a trivial mistake, is now stamped as a dark crime, and this sentence is
supported by them with learned reasons and wise references. There is guardianship
of justice and of morals which is nothing more than hypocrisy, by means of which
injustice and violence are made a cloak for the performance of abominable deeds.
Hence we must seek to know, not what pleases Prayer of Manasseh, but what
pleases God. What is good and beautiful in itself is to be sought after. Feuardent:
“All might have been explained in a milder sense, and a reasonable excuse might
have been offered. She was forbidden to enter that promiscuous assembly by the
very modesty which is a woman’s chief ornament.”
2. However wisely the counsellors of Ahasuerus counsel together, yet all their
wisdom in truth is nothing but folly; to such a degree as to cause us to smile, but yet
pity. They would forestall the assumptions of the women, and would protect the
respect due to men. They suppose that they firmly ground the honor of Prayer of
Manasseh, if they suppress the rights of woman. They do not perceive that if they
compel woman to be subject to them, even to the sacrifice of her modesty, they will
divest her of all humanity, and thereby make her truly and offensively bold and
arrogant. Ahasuerus appears equally foolish. By not rendering a decision himself,
but deferring to his court for judgment, he would protect himself from the reproach
of cruelty and blind passion. But the real responsibility nevertheless falls upon him.
or does he by any means guard himself against the great loss of a wife, of whom he
has been so proud, and whose merits he will so soon be compelled to recognise. ow
the question remains, Were other heathen princes or judges really any wiser? We

120. know that it has ever pleased God to bring to shame the wisdom of the world; and
we would not hazard much, were we to say that the folly of Ahasuerus and his
counsellors would be found repeated more or less in all human measures and
arrangements which have not proceeded from a fear of God, but have reference
solely to human desire, inclination, and advantage. The divine law only is truly wise,
and those who are led thereby are surely protected from loss. Though that law
pronounces sentence of banishment against those who are rebellious, still it is just;
and even those so banished, if they but come to themselves and look within, must
recognise its justice. It only rejects these, to make room for all those who do turn
within and strive to give place to grace.
Starke: “ Esther 1:13-15. ‘For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of
God’ ( James 1:20). Esther 1:16-18. Thus it is ever in the world: as long as one is
able to stand, others run to aid, knowing that their help is not needed. When,
however, signs of falling are seen, all help to push him down. Esther 1:19. True
counsellors must set aside all respect for private interests, they must keep their eyes
fixed upon public dangers. They must exert themselves to avert general misfortune,
though thereby they even endanger their own welfare. Oh that all great lords would
have respect to the laws of the great God, as they desire to have their laws respected!
God’s law is truly of such a nature and obligatory character upon us that it neither
can nor should be changed. Esther 1:20-21. This is the manner of all great lords;
when their honor is insulted, they are very severe, and promptly bring their laws
into execution. But when God’s honor is insulted, then they are easily quieted, and
can readily and quickly change their purposes.”
Footnotes:
F #1 - Esther 1:2. ‫ה‬ ָ‫ִיר‬‫בּ‬, whence βάρις, denotes properly a fortress, hence the
capital.—Tr.]
F #2 - Esther 1:3. ‫ה‬ֶ‫תּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ִ‫מ‬, a drinking, i.e, a banquet, in which the wine was the
principal feature, as represented freely on the Assyrian monuments.—Tr.]
F #3 - Esther 1:3. ‫ִל‬‫י‬ַ‫ח‬, military force.—Tr.]
F #4 - Esther 1:3. ‫ים‬ִ‫מ‬ְ‫תּ‬ ְ‫ַר‬‫פ‬, a Persian word Hebraized. As it is here in the “absolute
form,” it does not qualify “provinces” following, but stands as an official
designation, probably of civil rank at court.—Tr.]
F #5 - Esther 1:18. The English Version has unwarrantably transposed this clause
(“which have heard,” etc.), which belongs to “ladies,” etc, above.—Tr.]
F #6 - Esther 1:22. ‫ב‬ָ‫ְת‬‫כּ‬ here evidently signifies the style of writing peculiar to each
province. Thus the cuneiform differs according to the several districts of the Persian
empire.—Tr.]
F #7 - We condense the following summary of the argument on the identity of the

121. Ahasuerus of the book of Esther, from McClintock & Strong’s Cyclop. s. v.
Ahasuerus. “From the extent assigned to the Persian empire ( Esther 1:1), ‘from
India even unto Ethiopia,’ it is proved that Darius Hystaspis is the earliest possible
king to whom this history can apply, and it is hardly worth while to consider the
claims of any after Artaxerxes Longimanus. But Ahasuerus cannot be identical with
Darius, whose wives were the daughters of Cyrus and Otanes, and who in name and
character equally differs from that foolish tyrant. Josephus (Ant. XI:6,1)makes him
to be Artaxerxes Longimanus; but as his twelfth year ( Esther 3:7) would fall in B.
C454, or 144 years after the deportation by ebuchadnezzar, in B. C598 ( Jeremiah
52:28), Mordecai, who was among those captives ( Esther 2:6), could not possibly
have survived to this time. Besides, in Ezra 7:1-7; Ezra 7:11-26, Artaxerxes, in the
seventh year of his reign, issues a decree very favorable to the Jews, and it is
unlikely, therefore, that in the twelfth ( Esther 3:7) Haman could speak to him of
them as if he knew nothing about them, and persuade him to sentence them to an
indiscriminate massacre. or is the disposition of Artaxerxes Longimanus, as given
by Plutarch and Diodorus (XI:71), at all like that of this weak Ahasuerus. It
therefore seems necessary to identify him with Xerxes, whose regal state and affairs
tally with all that is here said of Ahasuerus (the names being, as we have seen,
identical); and this conclusion is fortified by the resemblance of character, and by
certain chronological indications (see Rawlinson’s Hist. Evidences, p150 sq.). As
Xerxes scourged the sea, and put to death the engineers of his bridge because their
work was injured by a storm, so Ahasuerus repudiated his queen, Vashti, because
she would not violate the decorum of her sex, and ordered the massacre of the whole
Jewish people to gratify the malice of Haman. In the third year of the reign of
Xerxes was held an assembly to arrange the Grecian war (Herod. VII:7 sq.); in the
third year of Ahasuerus was held a great feast and assembly in Shushan the palace (
Esther 1:3). In the seventh year of his reign Xerxes returned defeated from Greece,
and consoled himself by the pleasures of the harem (Herod. IX:108); in the seventh
year of his reign ‘fair young virgins were sought’ for Ahasuerus, and he replaced
Vashti by marrying Esther. The tribute he ‘laid upon the land and upon the isles of
the sea’ ( Esther 10:1) may well have been the result of the expenditure and ruin of
the Grecian expedition.”—Tr.]
F #8 - The principal purpose of this clause is to distinguish the Achashverosh in
question from all other Persian monarchs bearing that general or regal title, by
adding the extent of his dominion. It thus becomes, as was evidently intended, an
important chronological datum.—Tr.]
F #9 - “We are not obliged to suppose that all or any of the governors were present
during the whole period of festivity. Rather we may conclude that the time was
extended in order to allow of the different persons making their appearance at the
court successively.” Rawlinson.—Tr.]
F #10 - “ othing could be more appropriate than this method at Susa and
Persepolis, the spring residences of the Persian monarchs.… A massive roof,
covering the whole expanse of columns, would be too cold and dismal; whereas
curtains around the central group would serve to admit both light and warmth.”

122. Loftus. —TR]
F #11 - Herodotus mentions (IX:80–82) the immense quantities of gold and silver
vessels of various kinds—which we know from the monuments were of the most
elegant style and costly ornamentation—together with couches and tables of the
precious metals, besides various colored awnings (παραπετάµατα), which Xerxes
carried with him on his expedition to Greece.—Tr.]
F #12 - “If the Ahasuerus of Esther is rightly identified with Xerxes, Vashti should
be Amestris, whom the Greeks regard as the only legitimate wife of that monarch,
and who was certainly married to him before he ascended the throne. In that case
the name may be explained either by corruption of Amestris, or as a title; and it
may be supposed that the disgrace recorded was only temporary; Amestris in the
latter part of Xerxes’ reign recovering her former dignity.” Rawlinson.—Tr.]
F #13 - “ These names, being those of eunuchs, are not unlikely to be of foreign
origin. They have generally but little resemblance to known Persian names.”
Rawlinson.—Tr.]
F #14 - “It has been said that this is invariable, and indicates an ignorance of
Persian customs on the part of the author. But even De Wette allows that such an
act is not out of harmony with the character of Xerxes (Einleitung, § 198, a, note6);
and it is evidently related as something strange and unusual. Otherwise the queen
would not have refused to come.” Rawlinson.—Tr.]
F #15 - “These names have a general Persian cast, though they are difficult of
identification. They have probably suffered to some extent for corruption (i.e,
transcription into Hebrew); and perhaps they were not even at first very close to the
Persian originals. In Marsena we may perhaps recognize the famous Mardonius,
and in Admatha Xerxes’ uncle, Artabanus.” Rawlinson.—Tr.]
F #16 - “According to Herodotus (ΙΙΙ. 84), there were seven families of the first
rank in Persia, from which alone the king would take his wives. Their chiefs were
entitled to have free access to the king’s person. The Be-histun Inscription, which
gives Darius six coadjutors in his conspiracy, confirms the Greek writer.”
Rawlinson —Tr.]
F #17 - “It is not surprising that the judgment delivered by Memucan was one of
condemnation, for it was rarely indeed that any Persian subject ventured to offer
opposition to the mildest caprice or to the most extravagant whim of the monarch.
(See Herodotus ΙΙΙ. 31, 35).” Rawlinson.—Tr.]
F #18 - “The theoretical inviolability of the laws of the Persians is often touched on
by the Greek writers. Practically the monarch, if he chose, could always dispense
with the law. It was therefore quite within his power to restore Vashti to her
queenly dignity, notwithstanding the present decree, if he so pleased.” Rawlinson—
Tr.]

123. F #19 - “The Persian system of posts is described with some minuteness both by
Herodot. (VIII:98) and Xenophon (Cyrop. VIII:6). The incidental notices in this
Book (see chaps. Esther 3:12-15; Esther 8:9-14) are in entire harmony with the
accounts of the classical writers. Herodotus describes the system as in full operation
under Xerxes.” Rawlinson.—Tr.]
F #20 - The practice of the Persians, to address proclamations to the subject-
nations in their own speech, and not merely in the language of the conqueror, is
illustrated by the bilingual and trilingual inscriptions of the Achæmonian
monarchs, from Cyrus to Artaxerxes Ochus, each inscription being of the nature of
a proclamation.” Rawlinson—Tr.]
F #21 - “This decree has been called ‘absurd’ and ‘quite unnecessary in Persia’
(Davidson). If the criticism were allowed, it would be sufficient to observe that many
absurd things were done by Xerxes (see Herod. VII:35; IX:108–111). But it may be
questioned whether the decree was unnecessary. The undue influence of women in
domestic, and even in public affairs, is a feature of the ancient Persian monarchy.
Herodotus tells us that Alesia ‘completely ruled’ Darius (VII, 3). Xerxes himself was.
in his later years, shamefully subject to Amestris (ib. IX, 111). The example of the
court would naturally infect the people. The decree, therefore, would seem to have
been not so much an idle and superfluous act as an ineffectual protest against a real
and growing evil.” Rawlinson.—Tr.]