II.

Sometimes the humor lies in the description itself rather than in the

thing described. Dr. Barrow, in his famous essay, says of facetiousness,

"Sometimes it is wrapped up in a dress of humorous expression."

An excellent example is furnished in the account of the mob at Ephesus:

"Some, therefore, cried one thing and some another; for the assembly was

confused; _and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together_."

When Sidney Smith speaks of "distressing accidents," we are reminded that

an exceedingly "distressing accident" happened in the very first family of

which we have any record--the family that started in Eden. Aside from any

question as to the literal truth of the story, nothing can exceed the

simplicity and naturalness with which the writer has described the

culprits and their excuses. The first thing they did after their

transgression was to hide. The supreme and perpetual folly of guilt is to

imagine that it can be hid when the voice of the Lord God is heard in the

garden. "And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art

thou?" The culprit creeps forth from his hiding-place and stammers, "I

heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I

hid myself." "Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the

tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?" Now the guilty

secret is out and Adam pleads in extenuation, "The woman that thou gavest

to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat." It was no fault of

mine. That _woman_ was to blame--the woman, O Lord, remember, that _thou_

gavest to be with me. Is not a little of the responsibility thine also, O

Lord? A touch of nature! "As it was in the beginning, is now and ever

shall be!" But Eve will not bear all the blame. She also is ready with her

excuse: "The serpent beguiled me and I did eat." Another remove in the

location of the responsibility. If we can forget all that theology has put

into this story and look on it simply as a bit of literature, it is a

charming description of the way in which we mortals disclaim

accountability for our deeds.

"And oftentimes excusing of a fault,

Doth make the fault worse by the excuse;

As patches set upon a little breach,

Discredit more in hiding of the fault,

Then did the fault before it was so patched."

Job has expressed his contempt for Adam's conduct in Eden by invoking upon

himself even greater ills than he was then suffering, if he followed that

disgraceful example,--"If I covered my transgression as Adam, by hiding my

iniquity in my bosom." In magnificent scorn of Adam's hiding from the Lord

and laying his guilt upon another, Job exclaims, "Behold, my desire is

that the Almighty _would_ answer me!" and avows that "he would declare

unto him the number of his steps, and as a prince would go near unto

him,"--not skulk away from his presence among trees and bushes. The low

estimation in which Job holds Adam suggests that the old Hebrew who wrote

the story in Genesis, may have intended to hold up that primal man in a

humorous light.

Whether the story of Balaam is literally correct in its details is one of

the questions this little volume is not intended to discuss. The writer of

that story tells his tale as naively as if conversations between men and

animals were of everyday occurrence. If we read it as we would any similar

piece, any other fable in which men and beasts speak to each other, we

should say that there were some elements of the ludicrous in the picture

of the prophet rebuked by his ass. "And the ass saw the angel of the Lord

standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand; and the ass turned

aside out of the way and went into the field. And Balaam smote the ass to

turn her into the way." Just what any one would do to a "shying" animal,

upon impulse. "But the angel of the Lord stood in a path of the vineyards,

a wall being on this side and a wall on that side. And when the ass saw

the angel of the Lord, she thrust herself unto the wall and crushed

Balaam's foot against the wall; and he smote her again." Naturally enough!

"And the angel of the Lord went further and stood in a narrow place where

there was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. And when

the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she fell down under Balaam; and

Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff." The rising

wrath of the prophet can no longer be controlled. The turning from the

way, the crushing of his foot against the wall, and finally the falling

down under him and refusing to proceed further,--these indignities on the

part of the ass at length exasperate the prophet beyond all measure, and

he right lustily lays on the cudgel. "What have I done unto thee that thou

hast smitten me these three times?" meekly inquires the belabored ass.

"Because thou hast mocked me, I would that there were a sword in my hand,

for now I would kill thee," roars Balaam. Thou hast mocked me; thou hast

played tricks upon thy master, the prophet of God. Thou hast done this on

purpose to vex me and put me to shame. Thou hast made a sorry spectacle of

me with thy pranks, and thou hast crushed my foot in the bargain. "Am I

not thine ass upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this

day? Was I ever wont to do so unto thee?" Should you not have known there

was something unusual? These are touches of nature in a story which might

illustrate the saying of Isaiah in which he attributes higher wisdom to

brutes than to men: "The ox knoweth his owner and the ass his master's

crib, but Israel doth not know, my people will not consider." Was it this

saying that Shakespeare had in mind when he said, through the lips of

Mark Antony:

"O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,

And men have lost their reason."

At one time the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon and other cities,

and put them into the cities of Samaria to take the places of the children

of Israel; but the new inhabitants did not fear the Lord, so the writer

tells us that the Lord sent lions among them and slew them. Some one spoke

to the king of Assyria, saying, "The nations which thou hast moved and

placed in the cities of Samaria know not the manner of the God of the

land." They are not acquainted with his habits and methods, and have

gotten themselves into great trouble. The God of the land has sent lions

among them. The king, hearing this, is in great dismay. It will never

do--the ravages of those lions must be stopped. He evidently thought, as

did Nick Bottom, "There is no more fearful wild-fowl than your lion

living, and we ought to look to it." "Then the king of Assyria commanded,

saying, Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence, and

let him go there and dwell and teach them the manner of the God of the

land." The priest went and taught the uninitiated people not to provoke a

God who could let hungry lions loose upon them at any moment. The people

listened in terror. The result of the instruction was that "the people

_feared_ the Lord,"--with a side glance at the lions. They tried to

refrain from what would make him angry enough to order out the lions but

after all--and there must have been a twinkle in the eye of the scribe as

he recorded it--"_they served their own gods_."

When Queen Vashti refused to come into the presence of King Ahasuerus and

his drunken lords, she did something that was wholly unprecedented.

Nothing of the kind had ever before been heard of in the whole history of

the empire. The revellers are shocked sober. Consternation reigns supreme.

When did a queen ever refuse to do the bidding of a king? a wife the

bidding of a husband? Are all our ancient notions of propriety to be

overturned? What will be the effect of Vashti's rebellion? The feelings of

the king are outraged because the queen declines to unveil her beauty

before his roistering courtiers. Enraged, he demands, "What shall be done

unto Queen Vashti because she hath not performed the commandment of the

King Ahasuerus?" It is a grave question. The lords themselves have a stake

in this matter. They fear the result of this strong-minded example. The

contagion of disobedience may spread. If it should, whose authority as

husband is safe? And Memucan answered, "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 the province of the King Ahasuerus. For this deed of Queen

Vashti's shall come abroad to all women, to make their husbands

contemptible in their eyes, when it shall be reported that the King

Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, _but she

came not_. And this day shall all the princesses of Persia and Media which

have heard of the deed of the queen, say the like unto all the king's

princes. So shall there arise too much contempt and wrath." Such a thought

could not be entertained. As Dogberry would put it, "It is most tolerable

and not to be endured." Memucan, therefore, advises: "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 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." The penalty is severe, but

the case is one that demands heroic treatment. "And when the king's decree

which he shall make, shall be published throughout all his empire, _all

the wives shall give to their husbands honor, both great and small_." The

advice is accepted. "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, to every people after their language, that _every man should bear

rule in his own house_." Thus perished the first recorded movement in the

direction of woman's rights!