So, my annual reading of the Book of Esther.
What I’m struck by, this time through, is the way that Vashti’s unsuccessful persuasion is written about in terms of its presumed-to-be-deleterious effect as women emulate her actions, while Esther’s successful persuasion is not.
I talk a lot about Vashti, don’t I? It’s not a story about Vashti, I know. But I’m convinced the book starts with Vashti for a reason, even if my sense of what that reason might be changes from year to year. Anyway, if you need a refresher of that part of the story: Emperor Ahasuerus, at a massive multi-day party, commands Queen Vashti to appear before the potentates, and she refuses. The advisors and princes insist that he make an example of her by kicking her out of her palace and her title.
And Memucan answered before the king and the princes, 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 all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus. For [this] deed of the queen shall come abroad unto all women, so that they shall despise their husbands in their eyes, when it shall be reported, ‘The king Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she came not.’ [Likewise] shall the ladies of Persia and Media say this day unto all the king's princes, which have heard of the deed of the queen. Thus [shall there arise] too much contempt and wrath. 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 the 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. And when the king's decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his empire, (for it is great,) all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small. (KJV)
This is a lot of time spent at the beginning of a very short book devoted to making the specific point about women emulating the Queen’s actions and speech. Not, like, a passing thing, but several verses. And then, obviously, Ahasuerus forgets all about it when he sobers up and has to be reminded that there’s a vacancy in the women’s palace. So there’s that about the whole role model thing, too.
Now, when Esther violates the court norms and addresses the Emperor directly, there is not the slightest mention of what other women in the kingdom will think about that. When the Jews are saved (leaving aside the horrible details) the local officials fear Mordechai, not Esther. It is Esther who asks the King for the decree, but it is Mordechai who writes it, and the people are afraid of him, not her. No-one suggests the possibility that anyone will emulate Esther, for good or ill.
Note also, the interpolated story of Mordechai’s honor—Haman has to pronounce Thus shall it be done unto the man whom the king delighteth to honour. It’s explicitly about how people should emulate Mordechai, innit? It’s not couched in specifics about Mordechai and his merit, but about the generic men who are valued for whatever reason.
There’s something going on with honor and emulation and persuasion— I am now thinking that the central question of the book is not, as it is often suggested, “who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”, but “What shall be done unto the man [or woman] whom the king delighteth to honour [or vilify]?”
Tolerabimus quod tolerare debemus,
-Vardibidian.