Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 8.djvu/583

Rh E S T E S T 561 to show that the narrative was written subsequently to the fall of the Persian empire, and not earlier than the end of the fourth century, about 150 years after Xerxes. This has been maintained by several eminent critics (e.g. Zunz, Herzfeld, Ewald, Bertheau, Kuenen) on the following grounds. (1) The absence of any reference to the story in the books (or rather book) of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, in Daniel, in Ecclesiasticus (see chaps. xliv.-L), or in Philo. (2) The way in which the Persian monarchy is described. A book so far from complimentary in some of its details to a great Persian king cannot, it is urged, have been written during the continuance of his dynasty, any more than the so-called song of Solomon can have been written under the rule of the Solomonic family. True, the opening of Esther pourtrays in brilliant hues the outward splendour of Ahasuerus s empire, but the very brilliance, and still more the particularity, of the description, indicates that that empire was a wonder of the past, already begin ning to be invested with the glamour of fairy-land. The necessity for an explanation of Persian customs (i. 13, via. 8) is thought to point in the same direction. (3) &quot; The absence of the religious spirit in the writer, or rather the absence of its manifestation. Had the writer lived soon after the events narrated, it is improbable that he would have omitted all [direct] mention of divine providence and the name of God, because the religious feeling had not so far degenerated among the Jewish captives who did not return to their own land with Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah &quot; (Dr Davidson, T-he Text of the Old Testament considered, 1856, p. 609). In the Greek period, on the other hand, we know for certain from Ecclesiastes that the religious spirit was declining, at any rate in some circles, even in Judea. (4) The lateness of the style. This has been carefully investigated by Zunz, who remarks that there are more than fifty expressions which point to a late date, and which include, besides Persisms, three also found (and found only) in Ezra, Nehemiah, Ecclesiastes, one in Nehemiah, Ecclesiastes, and Ps. cxix., one in Chronicles, five in Ecclesiastes, one in Daniel, one in Chronicles and Daniel, one in Nehemiah and Daniel, also six belonging to later Hebrew, two to Aramaic, and four resembling the usage of the Mishna, The value of this argument, how ever, depends partly on the date which we assign to Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, and Daniel, also on the relation of Ezra and Nehemiah to Chronicles. The weighty reference to the Mishnaic usage remains, however, in full force, how ever conservative be our decision on the date of Chronicles, &c. We have said nothing at present of the festival of Purim, which, according to Keil, is &quot; the principal evidence of the historical truth of the whole narrative,&quot; and which, even according to the more critical Friedrich Bleek, &quot; un doubtedly presupposes the occurrence of what is narrated in our book.&quot; To many scholars, however, the connexion of the book of Esther with the festival of Purim is rather a difficulty than otherwise. It is hardly necessary to refer to Mr Tylor for evidence of the tendency to invent stories to account for popular festivals. Dr Kuenen, who speaks as the representative of a growing school, maintains that the book of Esther is through and through unhistorical, that &quot; the explanation it offers of the Purim feast is not taken from the reality, but invented to make that feast popular. A Persian word pur meaning lot is quite unknown&quot; (Religion of Israel, iii. 148). He then fortifies his position by a reference to the numerous im probabilities which we have already mentioned. According to him, Purim was originally a Persian feast, and was by degrees adopted by the Jews, first in Persia, and then in other countries, and the object of the author of Esther was to make the observance of the feast still more general. He is not, however, prepared with a satisfactory explanation of the word Purim. Von Hammer s derivation from furdigdn, the name of a Persian festival, falls througli, as Dr Kuenen points out, owing to the fact that//m//ya/t was not a spring I feast, and, as Purim was kept on the 14th and 15th of the month Adar, a spring feast is obviously required. A more plausible form of the hypothesis adopted by Dr Kuenen is perhaps that of Zunz. The Jews during and after the exils were much influenced religiously by the nations among whom they lived (so at least many critics believe, quoting as instances the belief in the seven archangels and in Azazel). It was the policy of the doctors of the law to adopt as many of the new popular usages as they could, without detriment to the purity of their religion. Purim, a joyous, secular festival, enjoyed (as it still does enjoy) a great popularity among the Jews. The religious authorities, desiring to check the exuberance of its celebra tion, determined to give it a quasi-consecration by connecting it with an event (real or imaginary) in the history of the nation. They omitted the name of God, not from indiffer ence to religion, but to prevent it from being profaned at the secular celebration to which Pnrim was liable (cf. Esther ix. 19-22). It must be observed, in conclusion, that while the doctors of the law attached great importance to Purim and to Esther witness the statement that the men of the Great Assembly &quot; wrote &quot; (? edited) the book of Esther, also the various interpolated passages, and the devotion of an entire Talmudic treatise to the feast of Purim the sacerdotal authorities (of a more conservative turn) did their utmost to disparage the intrusive festival. No psalms were sung in the temple at the feast of Purim not even those which were usual at half festivals (see Bloch, Hellenistische Bestandtlieile im biblisclien Schriftthum, pp. 39-41). The first mention of Purim occurs in 2 Mace., xv. 36, where the thirteenth day of Adar is said to have been observed as a festival in memory of the death of Nicanor, &quot; the day before Mardocheus s day.&quot; Unfortunately the second book of Maccabees was written little, if at all, before the Christian era, while the first book (of much greater authority) simply says (vii. 49) : &quot; They ordained to keep yearly this day, being the thirteenth of Adar.&quot; Would the Jews, asks Dr Zunz, have made a new festival on the 13th, if the 14th were recognized as the feast of Purim 1 This, however, may well be called hypercriticism. And we may sum up by the remark that if direct historical evidence is deficient for the traditional view of the book of Esther, it- is equally deficient for the rival critical theory. Probability is our only guide. Yet even if the book contain a larger or smaller romantic element, it is of real historical value as a record of the Jewish spirit in a little known age, and is edifying even to Christians from its powerful though indirect inculcation of the lesson of divine providence. See, besides the Introductions to the Old Testament of Keil r Hleek, and Davidson, Banmgarten, De fide libri &(hcrce commen- talio hislorico-critica, Halte,&quot; 1839 ; Bertheau, Die Biiclicr Esra, Ncchcmja, und Esther, Leipzig, 1862; Zunz, Zcitschrift dcr dcutsch. nwrgcnldnd. Gcscllschaft, 1873, p. 684, &c. ; Oppert, Commcntairc hlstorique ct philoloyiquc dii livrc d 1 Esther, Paris, 1864; Herzfeld, Gcschichtc dcs VoIkcsJ Israel, Leipzig, 1863, Bd. ii. pp. 1-9, 357-366; iMvald, History of Israel, Lond. 1874, vol. v., pp. 230-234 ; Griitz, &quot;Die Kanonicitat des Buches Esther,&quot; Monatsschrift, 1871, pp. 502- 511 ; Bloch, HcUcnistische Bestandtheilc im biblischcn Schriftthum, 1877. (T- K. C.) ESTHONIA (in German Esthland, or more correctly Ehstland, in the native language Wiroma, &quot;the frontier country,&quot; or fiahu-ama, &quot;the country of the Rahwas or Esthonians,&quot; in Lettish Iggaun Senna, probably &quot; the land of the banished&quot;), one of three Baltic or so-called German provinces of Kussia, is bounded on the N. by the Gulf of Finland, on the E. by the government of St Petersburg, from which it is separated by the river Narowa, on the S. by Livonia, and on the W. by the Baltic. Inclusive of the islands of Dago, Mohn, and Oesel, it has an area of 7817 VIII. --71