Mr. Frazer now harms his cause, perhaps, by proving that just as, in
Esther, Mordecai had a royal ride, so, in Persia, a beardless, and if
possible one-eyed buffoon rode in mock royalty through the streets,
collecting money or goods, exactly like our Robin Hood before and even
after the Scottish Reformation.[13] It was _une quête_; examples are
endless. After his second round he fled, for the people might beat him
if they caught him, obviously in revenge, I think, for his robberies.
But Mr. Frazer, as usual, supposes the right to beat the buffoon to
'point plainly enough to the harder fate' of the sacrificed mock-king.
No date is given for this Persian custom, but, if it existed when the
Jews were in Persia, did it coexist with sacrifice of a mock-king? If
not, if it was a substitute for that obsolete cruelty, why are the Jews
supposed to have borrowed the cruelty no longer practised? This is a
question of dates, which may be implied, but are not given, though I
understand Mr. Frazer to mean that the buffoon's ride is later than the
origin of Purim.[14]
On the other hand, Lagarde, one of the most learned of Orientalists,
thinks that the ride of the beardless was already customary at the time
when the stories about Esther and Purim were composed. The Persians,
says Lagarde, had the Feast of Farwardîgân, a feast of jollity, the
rich making presents to the poor, as at Purim. They had also the Feast
of the Massacre of the Magi (Magophonia), and, thirdly, they had
the popular diversion of the Bide of the Beardless. Now the authors
of the Esther legend 'had these three colours on their palette, and
with these three painted, not a portrait of one feast, but a kind of
mixed caricature for the Jewish carnival.'[15] The Magophonia lent
the colours of the massacre, Farwardîgân lent the jollity and the
presents, the ride of the beardless lent the procession of Mordecai.
In that case, and if Lagarde is right, the Jews found at Babylon, not
a slaying of a mock-king, but the ride of the beardless. So they did
not borrow the slaying of a mock-king, but introduced into the Esther
legend an incident of a ride suggested by the ride of Mordecai, which
Mr. Frazer calls 'a degenerate copy of the original,' namely the reign
and death of the mock-king.[16]
Whether Lagarde's view be correct or not, this part of the evidence
is far too sandy a foundation for a theory about a matter of solemn
importance. The Jews could not borrow the hanging of a victim from the
Sacæa, if in their exile they only found the ride of the beardless one,
as in Lagarde's theory--not that he mentions the Sacæa.
Mr. Frazer, at all events, sees a connection between Purim and the ride
of the beardless. But the latter is popular, not official, in spite of
the fact that the king takes most of the goods facetiously robbed. As
popular, the ride is more primitive, he thinks, and shows its meaning
better than the Sacæa does. So Mr. Frazer says 'if there is any truth
in the connection thus traced between Purim and the "Ride of the
Beardless One," we are now in a position to finally unmask the leading
personages in the Book of Esther,' and show how Marduk and Humman got
into the plot.
Purim is not only the Sacæa, sacrifice and all, but is also connected
with the 'Ride of the Beardless One,' in which there was no sacrifice.
How this, if true, enables us 'to finally unmask' the characters in
_Esther_, is not at first very clear. Apparently the buffoonery of
the beardless one, who complained of the heat while the populace
snowballed him in March, was a magical ceremony, to make hot weather
by pretending that the weather, in fact, _was_ hot.[17] Therefore, the
hypothetical rites of
Haman
Vashti
Mordecai
Esther
represent, in the first pair, the decaying; in the second pair, the
reviving, energies of vegetation, past and present. One pair mates and
the male, at least, is slain; the other pair mates and survives, to
encourage vegetable life.
By the hypothesis the first pair (Haman and Vashti) originally lived
as man and wife for a whole year, 'on the conclusion of which the male
partner' (Haman) 'was put to death.' Of course, even if Haman was the
mock-king slain at the Sacæa (which we do not grant), his mock-kingship
was very brief. However, it lasted for a year, Originally, we may
conjecture.' The later fortunes of Vashti are wrapped up in mystery.
But I cannot refrain from quoting one of my author's most eloquent
passages on this obscure subject. We do not hear that Vashti was put to
death, in fact we do not hear anything about her at all from our one
authority; but I the nature of maternity suggests an obvious reason
for sparing her a little longer, till that mysterious law, which links
together woman's life with the changing aspects of the nightly sky, had
been fulfilled by the birth of an infant god, who should in his turn,
reared perhaps by her tender care, grow up to live and die for the
world.'[18]
As Vashti, except for her profession, was not an habitual criminal, let
us hope that she was spared to look after the baby. Her issue, if any,
and if male, was apparently an hereditary criminal, for otherwise he
would not be hanged: the victims were always condemned criminals. The
cruelty of thus deliberately breeding such a criminal class, for the
mere purpose of hanging them, is shocking to the modern mind. We wish
to know whether the Jewish Hamans were also born and bred up to the
business. Mr. Frazer does not tell us that this was the case, or what
became of Vashti's female issue.
The ride of Mordecai in royal raiment is connected with and explained
(if I follow my author) by the ride of the Persian beardless buffoon.
To be sure the buffoon rode naked on an ass; Mordecai rode 'in royal
apparel of blue and white, with a crown of gold.' But the buffoon is
clearly later than the origin of Purim in Mr. Frazer's opinion, though
not in that of Lagarde. 'So long as the temporary king was a real
substitute for the reigning monarch, and had to die sooner or later in
his stead, it was natural that he should be treated with a greater show
of deference....'[19]
But Mordecai, who rode royally, was the man who did _not_ die: Haman
died. Therefore Mr. Frazer has to guess that the Mordecai of one year
died as the Haman of the next.
Ah me, there are so many guesses!
In any case, Mordecai is nothing but 'a slightly altered form of Marduk
or Merodach,' as is now 'generally recognised by Biblical scholars.'
Nevertheless, a real historical Jew called Mordecai occurs, as we
saw, in Ezra and Nehemiah: so the name was a Jewish name, odd as it
appears.[20] Now Mordecai, by the theory, has to be whipped and hanged
finally; and that seems an odd compliment to Merodach, or Marduk, who,
as supreme Babylonian god, is presiding over the gods, while his human
substitute is being slain infamously. But, remember, when whipped and
hanged, the Mordecai of 1900, so to speak, has become the Haman of
1901. And 'some high authorities are disposed to accept the theory of
Jensen that Haman is identical with Humman or Homman, the national god
of the Elamites.'[21]