was so complete in the time of the first Arsacides that, in the second century B. C., the inhabitants of Susa dug their tombs in the rubbish of the fortress. The funeral urns hidden by thousands in these places of burial are of the Parthian era, as is proved by the great number of pieces, until now very rare, belonging to Commascir, a local king, contemporary with Ptolemy VI., Philometor, (B. C. 181-146), and Demetrius Soter (163-151). The final ruin of the palace at Susa, long before the age of Commascir, later than the contests of Eumenes, should correspond to the establishment of the Parthian kingdom and to the revolutions which preceded the overthrow of the Seleucides. I would therefore place the final abandonment of the Memnonium several years before its fall, towards the end of the third century B. C. This date seems to me indisputable. As it is equally certain that the palace was described from nature, while still standing and inhabited, the time of the writing of the book of Esther must be put back at least to the first year of the fourth century B. C.

Thus, as I promised to demonstrate, with proofs of mathematical certainty, the hypothesis which would make the book of Esther into a romance with a purpose, posterior to the successes of the Maccabees (160 B. C.), is in all respects inadmissible and falls by itself. The school of which Mr. Reuss is the spokesman rejects with reason the assimilation of the feast of Purim with an ill-defined feast, little known, celebrated by the Persians on the return of spring. What remains of the solutions so laboriously conceived by the rationalists beyond the Rhine? The biblical legend, old, perfumed with the odors of Susa, alive in its simplicity. I have said "legend," and I adhere to this word, for I do not defend either the figures. or the general tone of the recital.

This great exaggeration of an unimportant revolution in the harem is due, I have already observed, to the nature of the subject, to the character of the oriental writers, to the very excusable excitement of the chroniclers, and more than all to the years which separate the acces

sion of Esther from the most ancient edition, among those which have come down to us, of her probable adventures.

Let me explain myself. The excavations at Susa, confirmed by the trilingual inscription engraved around the columns of the apadâna, teach us that the Achæmenian sovereigns twice established themselves upon the banks of the Ulaeus. Darius built over the ruined dwellings of the Elamite kings the first palace; this building, burned during the reign of Xerxes, was rebuilt by the care of Artaxerxes Memnon.

I cannot state positively that the new apadâna, which, under the name of bitan, plays such an important part in the history of Esther, was reconstructed on the ruins of the hall that had been destroyed by fire; from certain indications I should even think the contrary. On the other hand, no one any longer disputes the identity of the two forms of Xerxes and Ahasuerus. In this case Mordecai and his cousin would be the contemporaries of Xerxes, while the book of Esther would have been compiled in the reign of Artaxerxes Memnon or of his successors, since the architectural descriptions refer to the second palace built at Susa by the Achæmenians. The Bible does not contradict this conclusion. The sacred chronicler, whose good faith cannot be too much praised, allows it to be understood in the beginning of his narrative, that he is telling of an event already long past: “In the days of Ahasuerus, (this is Ahasuerus who reigned over an hundred and seven and twenty provinces)."

To sum up the book of Esther, written honestly at Susa by a Susian Jew, goes back for its Hebrew compilation, to this side of the accession of Artaxerxes Memnon and far beyond the Parthian conquest. I pretend to prove no more. The very clear designation of the feast. by a known and appropriate Persian word, the manifest sincerity of the author, the probability of the facts related, the chronology, the flavor of the tale, the realism of the end, make me think after all, that the legend of Purim is a somewhat heavy embroidery worked upon an unyielding

canvas.

ARTICLE IV.

THE GENESIS OF THE OXFORD MOVEMENT OF 1833

BY THE REV. JAMES W. WHITE, WAUWATOSA, WISCONSIN.

THERE is a circular, as well as onward, movement of thought that carries with it every sort of flood wood. The new is ever closely akin to the old. "Robert Elsmere," apparently regarded by the average popular mind as representative of the most advanced thought, sets forth a kind of mental experiences more in vogue half a century ago than at present. Thomas H. Green, an Oxford tutor who was thrown by a reaction from the Anglo-Catholic movement of 1833 into open revolt against all current forms of faith, has been ingeniously identified by Professor McCosh with "Mr. Grey" of Mrs. Ward's novel, while the positions of the book regarding miracles and biblical criticism generally have far more of the tone of the Tübingen school of the first decades of the century than of later theories.

Let us avail ourselves of this passing popular interest, to recall some of the phases of that remarkable movement of thought centring at Oxford University, which, with much of a local and temporary nature, embodies many elements of perennial value to the philosophic student. All such theological agitations as that which took its name from the "Oxford Tracts" issued in the years from 1833 to 1841 have their larger bearing and relation to more general movements of the age, and gain increased interest as reflections of principles at work in other departments

of thought. It will prove fruitful, before proceeding to examine the nature of the Oxford movement itself, to trace the lines of preparation for it in the political, literary, and theological agitations that immediately preceded it and gave it impetus and direction.

The effects of the French Revolution, in many respects the greatest upheaval of modern thought, have been factors in the history of every great movement since.

In politics, its influence was of course for a long time, after the first outburst of hope and enthusiasm had died out in a wail of agony and carnival of blood, met in England by an overwhelming reaction, and the Tory party was able for a considerable period to stifle all call for reform. But in 1830 the cause of liberty in France seemed to burst anew into full blossom, and the Bourbons were again expelled, this time without the loss of a drop of blood. Forgetful of the past, the effect upon all Europe was magical: the oppressed of every nation took courage, and all the crowned heads of the Continent were thrown into alarm. In England the cry of reform, silenced again and again, could now be repressed no longer. Says Mackenzie in his "History of the Nineteenth Century:" "The need, in truth, was very urgent. Two-thirds of the House of Commons were appointed by peers or other influential persons. Old Sarum had two members and not a solitary inhabitant; Gotton two, and seven electors. Three hundred members were returned by one hundred and sixty persons." After Waterloo in 1815, the popular distress and poverty following many years of wasteful and extravagant war brought matters to a crisis. A failure of the harvest in 1816 raised the price of wheat to one hundred and six shillings the quarter. Low wages, scarcity of employment, general depression of business, all seemed to forebode a national disaster of the direst character. Robberies, incendiary fires, instances of mob violence, were of daily occurrence. The strictest repressive measures were not omitted by the Tories in power. The right of

popular assembly was curtailed, newspapers were fettered, the use of military weapons forbidden. The extreme methods of popular coercion managed to hold at bay the masses for some years. But with the first announcement of republicanism in France the day of the Tories was found to be over. Wellington and his colleagues were compelled to resign, and Earl Grey and the Whigs came to power; and by dint of terrorizing the House of Lords into a sullen submission the first Reform Bill of 1832 was passed, enfranchising only a comparatively small number of citizens, but appearing in those times nothing short of a revolution. In the meantime, while the reform legislation was pending, a bill to remove civil disabilities from Roman Catholics was introduced and became a law in 1829. This with other changes involved a curtailment of the power of the Established Church, and, particularly in Ireland, being attended with some tumult and popular excesses, excited the greatest horror in conservative minds lest the Anglican Church was finally doomed. Oxford has been for centuries the centre of high Tory as well as High Church influence. All the weight of the University was, naturally, cast into the scale against the new measures. The odium it thus incurred among the masses was very bitter; riots were threatened in the streets of the city of Oxford; and threats were openly made to destroy the college buildings and to extirpate the University altogether.

In these exciting circumstances the condition of feeling among the professors, fellows, and undergraduates can be imagined. Whatever sympathy had been felt with the general spirit of liberalism of the time was soon lost in the new tide of reaction. It would seem a time for a new band of Cavaliers, had there only been a King Charles round whom to rally. The theological aspect of these events will be evident. Here was now a peculiar situation for the national church. The government, avowedly the guardian and protector of the church and curator of