136

XIV. VASHTI AND ESTHER.

The scenes of the drama of these two women's lives are laid outside the Hebrew country. More than a century had passed since the Jews had been carried into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. Two and a half centuries had which Jezebel passed since the kingdom in which ruled and Elijah and Elisha prophesied, had fallen at the hand of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria. The mighty kingdom of Babylon had passed out of existence and its place had been taken by the less glorious kingdom of Persia. Cyrus and Darius, the two great kings of the Persians, had lived and reigned, and the kingdom had fallen into the hands of the son of Darius, the weak, but luxurious Xerxes, or Ahasuerus. Two of his wives, queens in succession, form the subject of this chapter.

Vashti was his first queen. She was a Persian woman of great beauty and considerable force of character, too much force we should judge, for her to be an obedient and devoted wife, according to the Persian idea.

The king made a feast. To it were invited

the great lords and other officers of the court. Wine flowed freely; for although the early Persians had been very abstemious, those of Ahasuerus' time vied with one another in drinking. They drank, however, out of cups made of ainethyst, under the impression that the intoxicating power of the wine was thus destroyed.

That Ahasuerus himself was at least somewhat "elevated" with the wine he had taken, we have no doubt; for in the midst of the festivities, with wine-inflamed men about him, he made a most peculiar request. Knowing, as we do, the Persian women's customs regarding publicity, we wonder what frame of mind he was in to command Vashti to appear unveiled and expose her face to the group of noisy, hilarious, drunken men. But the order was given. The king desired his nobles to see how beautiful his wife was.

Vashti was forced to choose between the Persian idea of wifely duty, and the Persian idea of womanly modesty. Had she obeyed her husband he would have been dishonored as well as she; for it was the unwritten law of the Persians that the woman who exposed her face to the view of men in public, proclaimed herself a wanton and her husband a dishonored man. Therefore, it was an easy matter for Vashti to decide. Better, she thought, and rightly, lose position, power, and prestige-better give place to another than be unwomanly. And we cannot help admiring her for the choice she made.

But Ahasuerus was furious. He had been disobeyed by his wife, in the presence of all his nobles. It was easy in his excited frame of mind to believe that his guests had been insulted, or that they were laughing at his discomfiture. Or perhaps they were fearful that Vashti's disobedience would become contagious; that the women throughout the empire would consider hers a test case. If she went unpunished they would rebel against their husbands, and "woman's rights" be established centuries before the proper time! In fact, we cannot imagine any thought too extravagant for his excited mind.

Therefore, the question was not on the advisability of punishing her. Punished she must be and at once. The only question was on the proper means of punishment. A council of the wise men, or magi, was called to settle this question. due deliberation, they decided that she must be deposed from her position as queen, as an example to deter other women from similar disobedience. The action was taken and Vashti was deposed.

After

Again it must be said that Vashti's attitude. was worthy of all admiration. She was placed in a position where she had to choose between losing her station and forfeiting true womanhood. That she chose the former, causes us to respect and admire her far more than would the opposite course. No one can afford to sacrifice manhood or womanhood, which is the heritage of a lifetime, for position or power, which, at the best, may last but a

few fleeting years. She who chooses as Vashti chose, between the insane request of a drunken husband, and her own womanly integrity, will not lose permanently through any present sacrifice. And may not the moral be extended into other affairs? Who has ever prospered through sacrificing principle to position? The lesson of Vashti's self-sacrifice is a life-lesson. Though no more is said of her in the sacred record, yet the influence of her life, if properly understood, will extend throughout the ages.

I am pleased to find my opinion of Vashti's action confirmed by a very excellent authority: "Here we have another (folly) in the insult offered to his queen;-the order that she should exhibit herself to a crowd of drunken revelers (kings, princes, and plebeians of every class), to gratify the whim of her royal lord. We praise and bless her memory, in that with the self-respect of a true woman, and the lawful pride of a queen, she peremptorily refused. It cost her a crown, and led to the providential exaltation of a humble Hebrew maiden; but, while remembering the piety and courageous self-devotion of Esther, we cannot forget the modesty and magnanimity of the beautiful though unfortunate Vashti."

The familiar story of Esther needs only a brief repetition here, to bring it forcibly to the recollection of my readers. After Esther's advancement, she still considered herself under the control and guardianship of her foster father, Mordecai; and

he absolutely forbade her informing the king that she was a Jewess. About this time Mordecai, who had some office in Ahasuerus' court, and "sat at the gate of the palace." discovered a plot made by two chamberlains to assassinate the king, and foiled it by revealing it to Esther. Mention of this great service to the king was made in the court records, but no reward was given to Mordecai.

One Haman had been advanced by the king to the position of chief of his courtiers, or advisers, and all the servants and officers of the king's household, except Mordecai, did him reverence. This contempt on the part of Mordecai aroused the bitter resentment of Haman, who, hearing that his enemy was a Jew, determined upon destroying him and all the Jews throughout the Persian empire. It was a comparatively easy matter for Haman to get the signature of the careless, indifferent king to the edict ordering the massacre; first, because he represented the Jews to be a pernicious and dangerous people; second, because Haman offered to pay to the king ten thousand talents of silver, probably about seventeen mil-` lions of dollars, for the privilege of killing all the Jews and seizing their property.

"It is the old, old story. No enemy of true religion, from the days of Haman down to this advanced period in the nineteenth century after Christ, ever bethought him of stirring up sovereigns or legislatures to measures of persecution,