Esther 1:22

For he sent letters unto all the king's provinces,.... The one hundred and twenty seven provinces, Es 1:1, which, according to the Targum, were written and sealed with his own seal; which is very

That all sorts of persons, not men only, (who by study or travel many times understand divers languages,) but the women also, might understand it, and therefore be inexcusable if they did not comply with it; for which end it was not only written in each language, for that writing might come but to few hands, but moreover it was published in the several cities and towns by such persons as used to publish the king’ s edicts. Others, that he should speak in the language of his own people, i.e. that men should not, in compliance with their wives, who were oft of other nations and languages, inure themselves to it, and bring their wives’ language into the family; but that men should use their own proper language, and cause their wives and children to use it; this being one sign of dominion, and therefore frequent after this time among the Greeks and Romans, who, together with their victorious arms, brought in their language into other countries, and in a great measure imposed it upon them.

Esther 1:22 For he sent letters into all the king’ s provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that [it] should be published according to the language of every people.Ver. 22. That every man should have rule in his own house] Aequum sane edictum, modo moderatum, A righteous decree, had it been but rightly made use of, and not abused to tyranny and rough dealing. Aristotle saith, that the husband ought to have a civil power over his wife, as being her better in honour, speech, gravity, and dignity. Menander and Euripides say the same, holding it unfit that the hen should crow, that the woman should usurp authority over the man; this nature and Scripture do both condemn. But why should these Persian princes at this time send forth such an edict as this? Was it because this good law of nature began to be depraved and obliterated among them, as it was among the Egyptians, where the queen is more honoured than the king, and in private houses the wife than the husband, as Diodorus Siculus reporteth? Or had they a mind to divulge their own shame, and to tell the world that they were least masters at home, and must therefore have a law made to force obedience? Or was it not, lastly, to countenance the king’ s rash and unlawful putting away of his wife, for so light a cause; like as Cambyses, their recent king, having a mind to marry his own sister, made a law, that any man should have liberty to do the like? Whatever it was that moved them to send forth this decree, surely there was little need to excite men to use their authority over their wives, since they are apt enough to do so without bidding. Therefore St Paul, after, wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, doth not say, and subjoin, husbands rule over your wives, but, husbands love your wives, and be not bitter against them, Colossians 3:19. And that it should be published according to the language of every people] That so being particularly understood, it might appear more authentic and weighty, and so take away the hatred from the lawgivers for the wrong they had done the queen. Some render it thus, that he should speak according to the language of his own people, that is, say they, that each man should keep and observe the liberty of his own nation, by commanding his people, and governing his own family, without any contradiction.

(22) He sent letters.—The Persian Empire was the first to possess a postal system (see esp. Herod. vii. 98). The Greek word for “compel,” in Matthew 5:41; Matthew 27:32, is simply a corruption of the Persian word for the impressment of men and horses for the royal service. That every man should . . .—The following words are, literally, be ruling in his own house, and speaking according to the language of his own people. The former clause may probably be taken as a proof of the existence of an undue amount of female influence generally in Persia; the second clause is more doubtful. The English Version does distinct violence to the Hebrew, perhaps because the literal rendering yielded a somewhat peculiar sense. Taking the words exactly as they stand, they can only mean that in a house where two or more languages are used, from the presence of foreign wives, the husband is to take care that his own language is not supplanted by any of theirs. This is intelligible enough, but is perhaps rather irrelevant to what goes before.

Verse 22. That every man should bear rule in his own house] Both God's law and common sense taught this from the foundation of the world. And is it possible that this did not obtain in the Persian empire, previously to this edict? The twentieth verse has another clause, That all wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small. This also was universally understood. This law did nothing. I suppose the parade of enactment was only made to deprive honest Vashti of her crown. The Targum adds, "That each woman should speak the language of her husband." If she were even a foreigner, she should be obliged to learn and speak the language of the king. Perhaps there might be some common sense in this, as it would oblige the foreigner to devote much time to study and improvement; and, consequently, to make her a better woman, and a better wife. But there is no proof that this was a part of the decree. But there are so many additions to this book in the principal versions, that we know not what might have made a part of it originally.

22. he sent letters into all the king’s provinces] There was an excellent system of posts in Persia, which, according to Herodotus, was in full working order in the time of Xerxes. See further on Esther 3:13. to every people after their language] It would be interesting to know in detail the languages in which these letters may be supposed to have been written. We cannot, however, hope to attain completeness in our list, although there are a considerable number which we may confidently include, as spoken by the subjects of an Empire reaching ‘from India even unto Ethiopia’ (see Esther 1:1 with note). They may be classed as follows: (1) Semitic. In Babylonia Assyrian or the cognate Babylonian was the language of the government, while probably Aramaic, which is closely akin to these, was commonly spoken. This last, it would appear, was used throughout a large portion of the Persian Empire, and Aramaic inscriptions—one of them bearing date in the fourth year of Xerxes[61]—have been found in a country as distant from the centre of Persian rule as Egypt. The great Semitic family of languages, of which Aramaic is a member, prevailed in more or less varying forms (in addition to the above-named Assyrian and Babylonian) in a large part of the Persian king’s dominions, viz. Phoenician, Arabic, Hebrew, and Western or Biblical Aramaic. [61] See the Palaeographical Society’s Oriental Series, plate lxiii.(2) Turanian. In parts of Assyria and Babylonia there may also have been surviving dialects which belong to a wholly different group of languages, and formed the speech of the old Accadian and Sumerian population. These were branches of the Turanian or Agglutinative family of which Turkish is one of the representatives at the present day. To this class also belonged Georgian, the most important of the languages spoken on the southern side of the principal Caucasus range. (3) Aryan. This great family, to which can be traced most of the languages of modern Europe, would include Sanscrit and Prakrit, the latter of which is the mother of a large number of the Indian dialects, Zend, the old language of Bactria, and, lastly, the language of Greece, which doubtless at the time of Xerxes was making its way steadily eastward from the country of its birth. and should publish it according to the language of his people] The literal rendering of the Hebrew is that every man should be ruling in his own house and speaking according to the language of his own people. This has been explained to refer to cases where men had taken wives from other nations. The wife then must conform to her husband as regards the matter in question, and the language used in the family must be the mother tongue of the latter (so the Targum).

He sent letters - The Persian system of posts incidentally noticed in the present book Esther 3:12-15; Esther 8:9-14, is in entire harmony with the accounts of Herodotus and Xenophon.

22. He sent letters — Herodotus (viii, 98) thus describes the Persian system of letter carrying: “There is nothing mortal that proceeds faster than these messengers.