[1] i.e. Margrave of the Empire (_marchio Sancti Imperii_) in Italy.
(See MARQUESS.)
[2] Another son of Azzo and Gersende became count of Maine as Hugh
III. (d. 1131).
ESTE (anc. Ateste, q.v.), a town and episcopal see of Venetia, Italy, in
the province of Padua, 20 m. S.S.W. of it by rail. Pop. (1901) 8671
(town); 10,779 (commune). It lies 49 ft. above sea-level below the
southern slopes of the Euganean Hills. The external walls of the castle
still rise above the town on the N., but the interior is now occupied by
the cattle-market. A fragment of the once enormous Palazzo Mocenigo, of
the 16th century, is now occupied by the important archaeological museum
(see ATESTE). The cathedral was erected in 1690-1720, on the site of an
older building destroyed by an earthquake in 1688. S. Martino is a
church in the Lombard Romanesque style. The archives in the Palazzo
Comunale are important.
After the Roman period the history of Este is a blank until the Lombard
period, in which it was dependent on Monselice. In the 10th century the
family of Este (see above) established itself in the castle above the
town. At the end of the 13th century Padua, which had already captured
Este more than once, became definitely mistress of it. When the Carrara
family succumbed in 1405, Este voluntarily surrendered to Venice and was
allowed its independence, under a podesta; and thenceforth it followed
the fortunes of Venetia.
ESTEBANEZ CALDERON, SERAFIN (1799-1867), a Spanish author, best known by
the pseudonym of "El Solitario," was born at Malaga on the 27th of
December 1799. His first literary effort was _El Liston verde_, a poem
signed "Safinio" and written to celebrate the revolution of 1820. He was
called to the bar, and settled for some time at Madrid, where he
published a volume of verses in 1831 under the assumed name of "El
Solitario." He obtained an exaggerated reputation as an Arabic scholar,
and played a minor part in the political movements of his time. He died
at Madrid on the 5th of February 1867. His most interesting work,
_Escenas andaluzas_ (1847), is in a curiously affected style, the
vocabulary being partly archaic and partly provincial; but, despite its
eccentric mannerisms, it is a vivid record of picturesque scenes and
local customs. Estebanez Calderon is also the author of an unfinished
history, _De la conquista y perdida de Portugal_ (1883), issued
posthumously under the editorship of his nephew, Antonio Canovas del
Castillo.
ESTELLA, a town of northern Spain, in the province of Navarre, on the
left bank of the river Ega, 15 m. W.S.W. of Pamplona. Pop. (1900) 5736.
Estella, which occupies the site of a Roman town of uncertain name,
contains several monasteries and churches, a medieval citadel, and a
college which was formerly a university. Its principal industries are
the manufacture of woollen and linen fabrics and brandy-making; and it
has a considerable trade in fruit, wine and cattle. Estella commands
several defiles on the roads from Castile and Aragon, and on that
account occupies a position of considerable strategic importance. It was
long the headquarters of Don Carlos, who was proclaimed king here in
1833. In 1873 it was the chief stronghold of the Carlists, and in 1874,
when driven from other places, they succeeded in retiring to Estella. On
the 16th of February 1876 the Carlists in the town surrendered
unconditionally. For an account of the Carlist rising see SPAIN:
_History_.
ESTERHAZY OF GALANTHA, a noble Magyar family. Its origin has been
traced, not without some uncertainty, to Salamon of Estoras, whose sons
Peter and Illyes divided their patrimony in 1238. Peter founded the
family of Zerhazy, and Illyes that of Illyeshazy, which became extinct
in the male line in 1838. The first member of the family to emerge
definitely into history was Ferencz Zerhazy (1563-1594), vice
lord-lieutenant of the county of Pressburg, who took the name of
Esterhazy when he was created _Freiherr_ of Galantha, an estate acquired
by the family in 1421. His eldest son, Daniel (d. 1654), founded the
house of Czesznek, the third, Pal (d. 1641), the line of Zolyom
(Altsohl), and the fourth, Miklos, that branch of the family which
occupies the most considerable place in Hungarian history, that of
Frakno or Forchtenstein.
This MIKLOS [Nicholas] ESTERHAZY of Galantha (1582-1645) was born at
Galantha on the 8th of April 1582. His parents were Protestants, and he
himself, at first, followed the Protestant persuasion; but he
subsequently went over to Catholicism and, along with Cardinal Pazmany,
his most serious rival at court, became a pillar of Catholicism, both
religiously and politically, and a worthy opponent of the two great
Protestant champions of the period, Gabriel Bethlen and George I.
Rakoczy. In 1611 he married Orsolya, the widow of the wealthy Ferencz
Magocsy, thus coming into possession of her gigantic estates, and in
1622 he acquired Frakno. Matthias II. made him a baron (1613), count of
Beregh (1617), and lord-lieutenant of the county of Zolyom and _magister
curiae regiae_ (1618). At the coronation of Ferdinand II., when he
officiated as grand-standard-bearer, he received the order of the Golden
Fleece and fresh donations. At the diet of Sopron, 1625, he was elected
palatine of Hungary. As a diplomatist he powerfully contributed to bring
about the peace of Nikolsburg (1622) and the peace of Linz (1645) (see
HUNGARY: _History_). His political ideal was the consolidation of the
Habsburg dynasty as a means towards freeing Hungary from the Turkish
yoke. He himself, on one occasion (1623), defeated the Turks on the
banks of the Nyitra; but anything like sustained operations against them
was then impossible. He was also one of the most eminent writers of his
day. He died at Nagy-Heflan on the 11th of September 1645, leaving five
sons.
See _Works of Nicholas Esterhazy_, with a biography by Ferencz Toldi
(Hung.) (Pest, 1852); _Nicholas Count Esterhazy, Palatine of Hungary_
(a biography, Hung.) (Pest, 1863-1870).
His third son PAL [Paul] (1635-1713), prince palatine, founded the
princely branch of the family of Esterhazy. He was born at Kis Marton
(Eisenstadt) on the 7th of September 1635. In 1663 he fought, along with
Miklos Zrinyi, against the Turks, and distinguished himself under
Montecuculi. In 1667 he was appointed commander-in-chief in south
Hungary, where he defeated the malcontents at Leutschau and Gyork. In
1681 he was elected palatine. In 1683 he participated in the deliverance
of Vienna from the Turks, and entered Buda in 1686 at the head of 20,000
men. Thoroughly reactionary, and absolutely devoted to the Habsburgs, he
contributed more than any one else to the curtailing of the privileges
of the Magyar gentry in 1687, when he was created a prince of the
Empire, with (in 1712) succession to the first-born of his house. His
"aulic tendencies" made him so unpopular that his offer of mediation
between the Rakoczy insurgents and the government was rejected by the
Hungarian diet, and the negotiations, which led to the peace of Szatmar
(see HUNGARY: _History_), were entrusted to Janos Pallfy. He died on the
26th of March 1713. He loved the arts and sciences, wrote several
religious works, and was one of the chief compilers of the _Trophaeum
Domus Inclytae Estoratianae_.
See Lajos Merenyi, _Prince Paul Esterhazy_ (Hung.) (Budapest, 1895).
Prince PAL ANTAL, grandson of the prince palatine Pal, was a
distinguished soldier, who rose to the rank of field-marshal in 1758. On
his death in 1762 he was succeeded by his brother.
Prince MIKLOS JOZSEF [Nicholas Joseph] (1714-1790), also a brilliant
soldier, is perhaps best remembered as a patron of the fine arts. For
his services in command of an infantry brigade at Kolin (1757) he was
specially mentioned by Count Daun, and became one of the original
members of the order of Maria Theresa. In 1762 he was appointed captain
of Maria Theresa's Hungarian body-guard, in 1764 _Feldzeugmeister_, and
in 1768 field marshal. His other honours included the Golden Fleece and
the grade of commander in the order of Maria Theresa. Joseph II.
conferred the princely title, which had previously been limited to the
eldest-born of the house, on all his descendants, male and female.
Esterhazy died in Vienna on the 28th of September 1790. He rebuilt in
the Renaissance style Schloss Esterhazy, the splendour of which won for
it the name of the Hungarian Versailles. Haydn was for thirty years
conductor of his private orchestra and general musical director, and
many of his compositions were written for the private theatre and the
concerts of this prince.
His grandson, Prince MIKLOS [Nicholas] (1765-1833) was born on the 12th
of December 1765. He began life as an officer in the guards,
subsequently making the grand tour, which first awakened his deep
interest in art. He quitted the army for diplomacy after reaching the
rank of _Feldzeugmeister_, and was employed as extraordinary ambassador,
on special occasions, when he displayed a magnificence extraordinary
even for the Esterhazys. He made at Vienna an important collection of
paintings and engravings, which came into the possession of the
Hungarian Academy at Budapest in 1865. At his summer palace of Kis
Marton (Eisenstadt) he erected a monument to Haydn. His immense
expenditure on building and the arts involved the family in financial
difficulties for two generations. When the French invaded Austria in
1797, he raised a regiment of 1000 men at his own expense. In 1809, when
Napoleon invited the Magyars to elect a new king to replace the
Habsburgs, overtures were made to Prince Nicholas, who refused the
honour and, further, raised a regiment of volunteers in defence of
Austrian interests. He died at Como on the 24th of November 1833.
His son, Prince PAL ANTAL [Paul Anthony] (1786-1866), entered the
diplomatic service. In 1806 he was secretary of the embassy in London,
and in 1807 worked with Prince Metternich in the same capacity in Paris.
In 1810 he was accredited to the court of Dresden, where he tried in
vain to detach Saxony from Napoleon, and in 1814 he accompanied his
father on a secret mission to Rome. He took a leading part in all the
diplomatic negotiations consequent upon the wars of 1813-1815,
especially at the congress of Chatillon, and on the conclusion of peace
was, at the express desire of the prince regent, sent as ambassador to
London. In 1824 he represented Austria as ambassador extraordinary at
the coronation of Charles X., and was the premier Austrian commissioner
at the London conferences of 1830-1836. In 1842 he quitted diplomacy for
politics and attached himself to "the free-principles party." He was
minister for foreign affairs in the first responsible Hungarian ministry
(1848), but resigned his post in September because he could see no way
of reconciling the court with the nation. The last years of his life
were spent in comparative poverty and isolation, as even the
Esterhazy-Forchtenstein estates were unequal to the burden of supporting
his fabulous extravagance and had to be placed in the hands of curators.
The cadet branch of the house of Frakno, the members of which bear the
title of count, was divided into three lines by the sons of Ferencz
Esterhazy (1641-1683).
The eldest of these, Count ANTAL (1676-1722), distinguished himself in
the war against Rakoczy in 1703, but changed sides in 1704 and commanded
the left wing of the Kuruczis at the engagements of Nagyszombat (1704)
and Veresko (1705). In 1706 he defeated the imperialist general Guido
Stahremberg and penetrated to the walls of Vienna. Still more successful
were his operations in the campaign of 1708, when he ravaged Styria,
twice invaded Austria, and again threatened Vienna, on which occasion
the emperor Joseph narrowly escaped falling into his hands. In 1709 he
was routed by the superior forces of General Sigbert Heister at Palota,
but brought off the remainder of his arms very skilfully. In 1710 he
joined Rakoczy in Poland and accompanied him to France and Turkey. He
died in exile at Rodosto on the shores of the Black Sea. His son Balint
Jozsef [Valentine Joseph], by Anna Maria Nigrelli, entered the French
army, and was the founder of the Hallewyll, or French, branch of the
family, which became extinct in the male line in 1876 with Count
Ladislas.
See _Count Esterhazy's Campaign Diary_ (Hung.), ed. by K. Thaly (Pest,
1901).
Count BALINT MIKLOS (1740-1805), son of Balint Jozsef, was an
enthusiastic partisan of the duc de Choiseul, on whose dismissal, in
1764, he resigned the command of the French regiment of which he was the
colonel. It was Esterhazy who conveyed to Marie Antoinette the portrait
of Louis XVI. on the occasion of their betrothal, and the close
relations he maintained with her after her marriage were more than once
the occasion of remonstrance on the part of Maria Theresa, who never
seems to have forgotten that he was the grandson of a rebel. At the
French court he stood in high favour with the comte d'Artois. He was
raised to the rank of marechal de camp, and made inspector of troops in
the French service in 1780. At the outbreak of the French Revolution, he
was stationed at Valenciennes, where he contrived for a time to keep
order, and facilitated the escape of the French _emigres_ by way of
Namur; but, in 1790, he hastened back to Paris to assist the king. At
the urgent entreaty of the comte d'Artois in 1791 he quitted Paris for
Coblenz, accompanied Artois to Vienna, and was sent to the court of St
Petersburg the same year to enlist the sympathies of Catherine II. for
the Bourbons. He received an estate from Catherine II., and although the
gift was rescinded by Paul I., another was eventually granted him. He
died at Grodek in Volhynia on the 23rd of July 1805.
See _Memoires_, ed. by E. Daudet (Fr.) (Paris, 1905), and _Lettres_
(Paris, 1906).
Two other sons of Count Ferencz (d. 1685), Ferencz and Jozsef, founded
the houses of Dotis and Cseklesz (Landschutz) respectively. Of their
descendants, Count MORICZ (1807-1890) of Dotis, Austrian ambassador in
Rome until 1856, became in 1861 a member of the ministry formed by Anton
Schmerling and in 1865 joined the clerical cabinet of Richard Belcredi.
His bitter hostility to Prussia helped to force the government of Vienna
into the war of 1866. His official career closed in 1866, but he
remained one of the leaders of the clerical party.
See also Count Janos Esterhazy, _Description of the Esterhazy Family_
(Hung., Budapest, 1901). (R. N. B.)
ESTERS, in organic chemistry, compounds formed by the condensation of an
alcohol and an acid, with elimination of water; they may also be
considered as derivatives of alcohols, in which the hydroxylic hydrogen
has been replaced by an acid radical, or as acids in which the hydrogen
of the carboxyl group has been replaced by an alkyl or aryl group. In
the case of the polybasic acids, all the hydrogen atoms can be replaced
in this way, and the compounds formed are known as "neutral esters." If,
however, some of the hydrogen of the acid remain undisplaced, then "acid
esters" result. These acid esters retain some of the characteristic
properties of the acids, forming, for example, salts, with basic oxides.
Esters may be prepared by heating the silver salt of an acid with an
alkyl iodide; by heating the alcohols or alcoholates with an acid
chloride; by distilling the anhydrous sodium salt of an acid with a
mixture of the alcohol and concentrated sulphuric acid; or by heating
for some hours on the water bath, a mixture of an acid and an alcohol,
with a small quantity of hydrochloric or sulphuric acids (E. Fischer and
A. Speier, _Ber_., 1896, 28, p. 3252).
The esters of the aliphatic and aromatic acids are colourless neutral
liquids, which are generally insoluble in water, but readily dissolve in
alcohol and ether. Many possess a fragrant odour and are prepared in
large quantities for use as artificial fruit essences. They hydrolyse
readily when boiled with solutions of caustic alkalies or mineral acids,
yielding the constituent acid and alcohol. When heated with ammonia,
they yield acid amides (q.v.). They form unstable addition products with
sodium ethylate or methylate. With the Grignard reagent, they form
addition compounds which on the addition of water yield tertiary
alcohols, except in the case of ethyl formate, where a secondary alcohol
is obtained.
OMgBr OMgBr R'
/ / \
R.CO2C2H5 --> R.C--OC2H5 --> R.C--R' --> R'--C.OH.
\ \ /
R' R' R'
OMgBr OMgBr R'
/ / \
H.CO2C2H5 --> H.C--OC2H5 --> H.C--R' --> CH.OH.
\ \ /
R' R' R'
N. Menschutkin (_Ber._, 1882, 15, p. 1445; _Ann._, 1879, 195, p. 334)
examined the rate of esterification of many acids with alcohols. It
was found that the normal primary alcohols were all esterified at
about the same rate, the secondary alcohols more slowly than the
primary, and the tertiary alcohols still more slowly. The
investigation also showed that the nature of the acid used affected
the result, for in an homologous series of acids it was found that as
the molecule of the acid became more complex, the rate of
esterification became less. The formation of an ester by the
interaction of an acid with an alcohol is a "reversible" or "balanced"
action, for as M. Berthelot and L. Pean de St Gilles (_Ann. Chim.
Phys._, 1862 (3), 65, p. 385 et seq.) have shown in the case of the
formation of ethyl acetate from ethyl alcohol and acetic acid, a point
of equilibrium is reached, beyond which the reacting system cannot
pass, unless the system be disturbed in some way by the removal of one
of the products of the reaction. V. Meyer (_Ber._, 1894, 27, p. 510 et
seq.) showed that in benzenoid compounds ortho-substituents exert a
great hindering effect on the esterification of alcohols by acids in
the presence of hydrochloric acid, this hindering being particularly
marked when two substituents are present in the ortho positions to the
carboxyl group. In such a case the ester is best prepared by the
action of an alkyl halide on the silver salt of the acid, and when
once prepared, can only be hydrolysed with great difficulty.
Ethyl formate, H.CO2C2H5, boils at 55 deg. C. and has been used in the
artificial preparation of rum. Ethyl acetate (acetic ether),
CH3.CO2C2H5, boils at 75 deg. C. Isoamylisovalerate, C4H9.CO2C5H11,
boils at 196 deg. C. and has an odour of apples. Ethyl butyrate,
C3H7.CO2C2H5, boils at 121 deg. C. and has an odour of pineapple. The
fats (q.v.) and waxes (q.v.) are the esters of the higher fatty acids
and alcohols. The esters of the higher fatty acids, when distilled
under atmospheric pressure, are decomposed, and yield an olefine and a
fatty acid.
Esters of the mineral acids are also known and may be prepared by the
ordinary methods as given above. The neutral esters are as a rule
insoluble in water and distil unchanged; on the other hand, the acid
esters are generally soluble in water, are non-volatile, and form
salts with bases. _Ethyl hydrogen sulphate_ (sulphovinic acid),
C2H5.HSO4, is obtained by the action of concentrated sulphuric acid on
alcohol. The ester is separated from the solution by means of its
barium salt, and the salt decomposed by the addition of the calculated
amount of sulphuric acid. It is a colourless oily liquid of strongly
acid reaction; its aqueous solution decomposes on standing and on
heating it forms diethyl sulphate and sulphuric acid. _Dimethyl
sulphate_, (CH3)2SO4, is a colourless liquid which boils at 187
deg.-188 deg. C., with partial decomposition. It is used as a
methylating agent (F. Ullmann). Great care should be taken in using
dimethyl and diethyl sulphates, as the respiratory organs are affected
by the vapours, leading to severe attacks of pneumonia. _Ethyl
nitrate_, C2H5.ONO2, is a colourless liquid which boils at 86.3 deg.
C. It is prepared by the action of nitric acid on ethyl alcohol (some
urea being added to the nitric acid, in order to destroy any nitrous
acid that might be produced in secondary reactions and which, if not
removed, would cause explosive decomposition of the ethyl nitrate). It
burns with a white flame and is soluble in water. When heated with
ammonia it yields ethylamine nitrate, and when reduced with tin and
hydrochloric acid it forms hydroxylamine (q.v.) (W.C. Lossen). _Ethyl
nitrite_, C2H5.ONO, is a liquid which boils at 18 deg. C.; the crude
product obtained by distilling a mixture of alcohol, sulphuric and
nitric acids and copper turnings is used in medicine under the name of
"sweet spirits of nitre." _Amyl nitrite_, C5H11.ONO, boils at 96 deg.
C. and is used in the preparation of the anhydrous diazonium salts (E.
Knoevenagel, _Ber._, 1890, 23, p. 2094). It is also used in medicine.
ESTHER. The _Book of Esther_, in the Bible, relates how a Jewish maiden,
Esther, cousin and foster-daughter of Mordecai, was made his queen by
the Persian king Ahasuerus (Xerxes) after he had divorced Vashti; next,
how Esther and Mordecai frustrated Haman's endeavour to extirpate the
Jews; how Haman, the grand-vizier, fell, and Mordecai succeeded him; how
Esther obtained the king's permission for the Jews to destroy all who
might attack them on the day which Haman had appointed by lot for their
destruction; and lastly, how the feast of Purim (Lots?) was instituted
to commemorate their deliverance. Frequent incidental references are
made to Persian court-usages (explanations are given in i. 13, viii. 8),
while on the other hand the religious rites of the Jews (except
fasting), and even Jerusalem and the temple, and the name of Israel,
are studiously ignored. Even the name of God is not once mentioned,
perhaps from a dread of its profanation during the Saturnalia of Purim.
The early popularity of the book is shown by the interpolated passages
in the Septuagint and the Old Latin versions.
The criticism of _Esther_ began in the 18th century. As soon as the
questioning spirit arose, the strangeness of many statements in the book
leaped into view. A moderate scholar of our day can find no historical
nucleus, and calls it a sort of historical romance.[1] The very first
verses in the book startle the reader by their exaggerations, e.g. a
banquet lasting 180 days, "127 provinces." Farther on, the
improbabilities of the plot are noticeable. Esther, on her elevation,
keeps her Jewish origin secret (ii. 10; cf. vii. 3 ff.), although she
has been taken from the house of her uncle, who is known to be a Jew
(iii. 4; cf. vi. 13), and has remained in constant intercourse with him
(ii. 11, 19, 20, 22; cf. iv. 4-17). We are further told that the
grand-vizier was an Agagite or Amalekite (iii. 1, &c.); would the
nobility of Persia have tolerated this? Or did Haman too keep his
non-Persian origin secret? Also that Mordecai offered a gross affront to
Haman, for which no slighter punishment would satisfy Haman than the
destruction of the whole Jewish race (iii. 2-6). Of this savage design
eleven months' notice is given (iii. 12-14); and when the danger has
been averted by the cleverness of Esther, the provincial Jews are
allowed to butcher 75,000, and those in the capital 800 of their Persian
fellow-subjects (ix. 6-16).
It is urged, on the other hand, that the assembly mentioned in i. 3 may
be that referred to by Herodotus (vii. 8) as having preceded the
expedition against Greece. This hypothesis, however, requires us to
suppose that Xerxes had returned from Sardis to Susa by the tenth month
of the seventh year of his reign, which is barely credible. In the
reckoning of 127 provinces (cf. Dan. vi. 1; 1 Esd. iii. 2) satrapies and
sub-satrapies may be confounded. It is at any rate correct to include
India among the provinces; this is justified, not only by Herodotus
(iii. 94), but by the inscriptions of Darius at Persepolis and
Naksh-i-Rustam. Herodotus again (vii. 8) confirms the custom referred to
in Esth. ii. 12. But what authority can make the conduct of Mordecai
credible? To-day the harem is impenetrable, while "any one declining to
stand as the grand-vizier passes is almost beaten to death."[2] This,
surely, is what a real Mordecai would have suffered from a real Haman.
Even the capricious Xerxes would never have permitted the entire
destruction of one of the races of the empire, nor would a vizier have
proposed it.
Serious difficulties of another kind remain. Mordecai is represented as
a fellow-captive of Jeconiah (597 B.C.), and grand-vizier in Xerxes's
twelfth year (474 B.C.)! This is parallel to the strange statement in
Tobit xiv. 15. And how can we find room for Esther as queen by the side
of Amestris (Herod. vii. 14, ix. 112)? How, too, can a Jewess have been
a legal queen (see Herod. iii. 84)? Then take the supposed Persian
proper names. "Ahasuerus" may no doubt stand, but very few of the rest
(see Noldeke, _Ency. Bib._ col. 1402). As to the style, the general
verdict is that it points to a late date (see Driver, Introd.^6, p.
484). Altogether, critics decline to date the book earlier than the 3rd
or even 2nd century B.C.
So far we have only been carrying on 18th-century criticism. In more
recent years, however, new lines of inquiry have been opened up. First
of all by the great Semitic scholar Lagarde. His thesis (seldom defended
now) was that Purim corresponds to Furdigan, the name of the old Persian
New Year's and All Souls' festival held in spring, on which the Persians
were wont to exchange presents (cf. Esth. ix. 19). In 1891 came a new
explanation of Esther from Zimmern. It is true that in its earlier form
his theory was very incomplete. But in justice to this scholar we may
notice that from the first he looked for light to Babylonia, and that
many other critics now take up the same position. There is also another
new point which has to be mentioned, viz. that, judging from our
experience elsewhere, the Book of Esther has probably passed through
various stages of development. Here, then, are two points which call for
investigation, viz. (1) a possible mythological element in Esther, and
(2) possible stages of development prior to that represented by the
Hebrew text.
As to the first point. The Second Targum (on Esth. ii. 7) long ago
declared that Esther was so called "because she was like the planet
Venus." Recent scholars have expressed the same idea more critically.
Esther is a modification of Ishtar, the name of the Babylonian goddess
of fertility and of the planet Venus, whose myth must have been
partially known to the Israelites even in pre-exilic times,[3] and after
the fall of the state must have acquired a still stronger hold on Jewish
exiles. A general knowledge of the myth of Marduk among the Israelites
cannot indeed be proved. Singularly enough, the Babylonian colonists in
the cities of Samaria are said to have made idols, not of Marduk, but of
a deity called Succoth-benoth[4] (2 Kings xvii. 30). Nor does the Second
Targum help us here; it gives a wild explanation of Mordecai as "pure
myrrh." Still it is plain that the name of the god Marduk (Merodach) was
known to the Jews, and the Cosmogony in Gen. i. is considered by critics
to have ultimately arisen out of the myth of Marduk's conflict with the
dragon (see COSMOGONY). At any rate the name Mordecai (the vocalization
is uncertain) looks very much like Marduk, which, with terminations
added, often occurs in cuneiform documents as a personal name.[5] Add to
this, that, according to Jensen, Ishtar in mythology was the cousin of
Marduk, just as the legend represents Esther as the cousin of
Mordecai.[6] The same scholar also accounts for Esther's other name
Hadassah (Esth. ii. 7); _hadasshatu_ in Babylonian means "bride," which
may have been a title of Ishtar.
But we cannot stop short here. Unless the mythological key can also
explain Haman and Vashti, it is of no use. Jensen, now followed by
Zimmern, is equal to the occasion. Haman, he says, is a corruption of
Hamman or Humman or Uman, the name of the chief deity of the Elamites,
in whose capital (Susa) the scene of the narrative is laid, while Vashti
is Mashti (or Vashti), probably the name of an Elamite goddess.
Following the real or fancied light of these names, Prof. Jensen holds
that the Esther-legend is based on a mythological account of the victory
of the Babylonian deities over those of Elam, which in plain prose means
the deliverance of ancient Babylonia from its Elamite oppressors, and
that such an account was closely connected with the Babylonian New
Year's festival, called Zagmuk, just as the Esther-legend is connected
with the festival of Purim.
We are bound, however, to mention some critical objections. (1) The
Babylonian festival corresponding to Purim was not the spring festival
of Zagmuk, but the summer festival of Ishtar, which is probably the
Sacaea of Berossus, an orgiastic festival analogous to Purim. (2)
According to Jensen's theory, Mordecai, and not Esther, ought to be the
direct cause of Haman's ruin. (3) No such Babylonian account as Jensen
postulates can be indicated. (4) The identifications of names are
hazardous. Fancy a descendant of Kish called Marduk, and an "Agagite"
called Hamman! Elsewhere Mordecai (Ezra ii. 2; Neh. vii. 7) occurs among
names which are certainly not Persian (Bigvai is no exception), and
Haman (Tobit xiv. 10) appears as a nephew of Achiachar, which is not a
Persian name. Esther, moreover, ought to be parallel to Judith; fancy
likening the representative of Israel to the goddess Ishtar!
Next, as to the preliminary literary phases of Esther. Such phases are
probable, considering the later phases represented in the Septuagint.
There may have once existed in Hebrew a story of the deadly feud between
Mordecai (if that be the original name) and Haman, with elements
suggested by the story of the battle between the Supreme God and the
dragon (see COSMOGONY). As the legend stands, Mordecai and Esther seem
to be in each other's way. In a passage (i. 5 in LXX.) only found in the
Septuagint, but which may have belonged to the original Esther,
reference is made to a dream of Mordecai respecting two great dragons,
i.e. Mordecai and Haman (x. 7). This seems to confirm the view here
mentioned. If so, however, there must also have been an Esther-legend,
which was afterwards worked up with that of Mordecai. This is, in fact,
the view of Erbt. Winckler takes a different line. Linguistic facts and
certain points in the contents seem to him to show that our Esther is a
work of the age of the Seleucidae; more precisely he thinks of the time
of the revolt of Molon under Antiochus III. Of course there was a Book
of Esther before this, and even in its redacted form our Esther reflects
the period of three Persian kings, viz. Cyrus, Cambyses and Darius.
Lastly, Cheyne (_Ency. Bib._ "Purim," S 7), while agreeing with Winckler
that the book is based on an earlier narrative, holds that that earlier
text differed more widely from the present in its geographical and
historical setting than Winckler seems to suppose. The problem of the
origin of the name Purim, however, can hardly be said to have received a
final solution.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Kuenen, _History of Israel_, iii. (1875), 148-153;
Lagarde, _Purim_ (1887); Zimmern in Stade's _Zeitschrift_, xi. (1891),
pp. 157-169, and _Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_^(3), 485,
515-520, Jensen in Wildeboer's _Esther_ (in Marti's series, 1898), pp.
173-175; Winckler, _Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_^(3), p.
288, _Altorientalische Forschungen_, 3rd ser. i. 1-64; Erbt, _Die
Purimsage_ (1900); _Ency. Biblica_, articles "Esther" and "Purim" (a
composite article). (T. K. C.)
ADDITIONS TO BOOK OF ESTHER. These "additions" were written originally
in Greek and subsequently interpolated in the Greek translation of the
Book of Esther. Here the principle of interpolation has reached its
maximum. Of 270 verses, 107 are not to be found in the Hebrew text.
These additions are distributed throughout the book in the Greek, but in
the Latin Bible they were relegated to the end of the canonical book by
Jerome--an action that has rendered them meaningless. In the Greek the
additions form with the canonical text a consecutive history. They were
made probably in the time of the Maccabees, and their aim was to supply
the religious element which is so completely lacking in the canonical
work. The first, which gives the dream of Mordecai and the events which
led to his advancement at the court of Artaxerxes, precedes chap. i. of
the canonical text: the second and fifth, which follow iii. 13 and viii.
12, furnish copies of the letters of Artaxerxes referred to in these
verses; the third and fourth, which are inserted after chap. iv.,
consist of the prayers of Mordecai and Esther, with an account of
Esther's approach to the king. The last, which closes the book, tells of
the institution of the feast of Purim. The Greek text appears in two
widely-differing recensions. The one is supported by AB[Hebrew: alef],
and the other--a revision of the first--by codices 19, 93a, 108b. The
latter is believed to have been the work of Lucian. Swete, _Old Test. in
Greek_, ii. 755, has given the former, while Lagarde has published both
texts with critical annotations in his _Librorum Veteris Testamenti
Canonicorum_, i. 504-541 (1883), and Scholz in his _Kommentar uber das
Buch Esther_ (1892).
For an account of the Latin and Syriac versions, the Targums, and the
later Rabbinic literature connected with this subject, and other
questions relating to these additions, see Fritzsche, _Exeget.
Handbuch zu den Apok._ (1851), i. 67-108; Schurer^(3), iii. 330-332;
Fuller in _Speaker's Apocr._ i. 360-402; Ryssel in Kautzsch's _Apok.
u. Pseud._ i. 193-212; Siegfried in _Jewish Encyc._ v. 237 sqq.;
Swete, _Introd. to the Old Test. in Greek_, 257 seq.; L.B. Paton, "A
Text-Critical Apparatus to the Book of Esther" in _O.T. and Semitic
Studies in Memory of W.R. Harper_ (Chicago, 1908). (R. H. C.)