_MORDECAI, ESTHER, VASHTI, AND HAMAN_
It may be asked, How did Humman or Marduk come to appear as the god
connected with the Sacæa, whereas Tammuz had previously taken that
part? The answer is that Humman and Marduk came in when we were
tentatively regarding Purim, not (1) as a Semitic Tammuz feast, nor yet
(2) as a Persian punishment of a condemned criminal acting asking's
proxy, but (3) as a festival for 'the final victory of the Babylonian
deities' (Marduk and the rest) 'in the very capital of their rivals'
(Humman and his company).[1] This was a theory suggested by Professor
Nöldeke. It has etymological bases.
The name Mordecai resembles Marduk, Esther is like Ishtar, Haman
is like Humman, the Elamite god, and there is a divine name in the
inscriptions, read as resembling 'Vashti,' and probably the name of an
Elamite goddess. Thus the human characters in Esther are in peril of
merging in Babylonian and Elamite gods. But, lest that should occur,
we ought also to remember that Mordecai was the real name of a real
historical Jew of the Captivity, one of the companions of Nehemiah in
the return from exile to Jerusalem.[2] Again, Esther appears to me to
be the crown-name of the Jewish wife of Xerxes, in the Book of Esther:
'Hadassah, that is Esther.'[3] In the Biblical story she conceals her
Jewish descent. Hadassah, says Nöldeke, 'is no mere invention of the
writer of 'Esther.'[4] Hadassah is said to mean 'myrtle bough,' and
girls are still called Myrtle. Esther appears to have been an assumed
name, after a royal mixed marriage.
Now if a real historical Jew might be named Mordecai, which we know
to be the case, a Jewess, whether in fact, or in this Book of Esther,
which, says Dr. Jastrow, 'has of course some historical basis,' might
be styled Esther.[5] Dr. Jastrow supposes from the proper names 'that
there is a connection between Purim' (the Jewish feast accounted for
in 'Esther') and _some_ Babylonian festival, '_not_ that of Zagmuku,'
or Zakmuk. Nöldeke says that no Babylonian feast coinciding with Purim
in date has been discovered.[6] Indeed this fact gives Mr. Frazer some
reason for various conjectures, as the date of Purim is not that of
Zakmuk. But, if Mordecai be, as it is, an historical name of a real
Jew of the period, while Esther may be, and probably is, a name which
a Jewess might bear, it is not ascertained that Vashti really is the
name of an Elamite goddess. Yet Vashti is quite essential as a goddess
to Mr. Frazer's argument. 'The derivation,' he says, 'of the names
of Haman and Vashti is less certain, but some high authorities are
disposed to accept the view of Jensen that Haman is identical with
Humman or Homman, the national god of the Elamites, and that Vashti is
in like manner an Elamite deity, probably a goddess whose name appears
in inscriptions.'[7] Now suppose that we adopt Mr. Frazer's method
about that unruly month Lous. 'The identification of the months of
the Syro-Macedonian Calendar is a matter of some uncertainty; as to
the month Lous in particular the evidence of ancient writers appears
to be conflicting, and until we have ascertained beyond the reach of
doubt when Lous fell at Babylon in the time of Berosus, it would be
premature to allow much weight to the seeming discrepancy in the dates
of the two festivals.'
Following this method we might say 'the identification of Haman and
Vashti with a probable Elamite god and goddess is a matter of some
uncertainty; as to Vashti in particular the opinion of modern writers
seems to be conflicting, and until we have ascertained beyond the
reach of doubt that Vashti was an Elamite goddess, and a goddess
of what sort, it would be premature to allow much weight to the
conjecture'--and then we might go on to allow none at all. But this
would be too hard a method of dealing with Mr. Frazer's hypothesis.
We should merely be getting rid of his theory in the same way as his
theory evades a definite historical obstacle.
It is clear, from the facts about the names Mordecai, Esther, Haman,
and Vashti, that to explain these as necessarily connected with Purim,
Zakmuk, and the Sacæa, as a feast of rejoicing for a Babylonian divine
victory over Elamite gods, is a very perilous hypothesis, among many
others as hazardous, or even more insecure. Mr. Frazer, however, is
intent on connecting the characters of 'Esther' with Babylonian and
Elamite gods. They are essential to his theory that, at the Sacæa and
Purim, there were a pair of human representatives of gods: Haman, with
a probable sacred harlot, Vashti, doing duty for the dying; Mordecai
with Esther, doing duty for the re-arisen god of vegetation. To this
point we return.
Now, as to this festival of a resurrection of such a god, we have seen
that, in vol. ii. 122, 253, 254, it occurred in July, to Mr. Frazer's
content. But, when it had to occur in March in vol. iii., we were met
by the difficulty of two, or rather three, feasts of this kind in
the year. Perhaps we get rid of this obstacle in iii. 177-179. The
resurrection is here that not of Tammuz, but of a hero of the same
type, is fixed by Jensen at Zakmuk, and therefore by Mr. Frazer, though
not by Jensen, at the Sacæa in spring.
Jensen's theory is that the death and resurrection 'of a mythical
being, who combined in himself the features of a solar god and an
ancient king of Erech, were celebrated at the Babylonian Zakmuk or
festival of the new year, and that the transference of the drama
from Erech, its original seat, to Babylon, led naturally to the
substitution of Marduk, the great god of Babylon, for Gilgamesh or
Eabani in the part of the hero.' Jensen, fortunately for his peace of
mind, 'apparently does not identify the Zakmuk with the Sacæa.' Jensen
constructs his scheme thus.
Gilgamesh was a hero of Erech, who repelled the amorous advances of
the goddess Ishtar. Gilgamesh became extremely unwell. His friend
Eabani also aroused the fury of Ishtar, and died. Gilgamesh procured
his return from the world of the dead to the upper world.[8] The feast
celebrating this resurrection was removed from Erech to Babylon.
Instead of a mortal hero, Gilgamesh or Eabani, a being cold and chaste
as Joseph Andrews, the Babylonians now cast Marduk, their supreme god,
for the part. The feast was Zakmuk.[9]
Of course this is precisely as if we said that an old feast of Adonis
was turned into a new feast of Zeus, whose coldness, as regards
goddesses, was not proverbial, like the frigidity of Adonis, Gilgamesh,
Eabani, Mr. Andrews, and other notable examples.
The theory seems to lack plausibility, but as Jensen 'apparently does
not identify Zakmuk with the Sacæa' he escapes the curious theory
of supposing that Marduk (late Gilgamesh, or Eabani) is whipped and
hanged in the person of his human representative--an unheard-of way of
honouring the personator of the supreme being. However, if we accept
Jensen's theory, and also, like Mr. Frazer, identify Zakmuk with the
Sacæa, then, remembering that Eabani rose from the dead (if he did),
and that Marduk is now Eabani, and that the Sacæan victim is or may
be Marduk, and is also the king, we get a reason for supposing that
the victim, too, was feigned to rise from the dead--in the person of
Mordecai (Marduk). But why was the representative of Marduk, who in
Jensen's theory represented Eabani, whipped and hanged? The victim, on
this theory, if we add it to Mr. Frazer's, seems to me to personate