Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 1

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon to Jerusalem - This event occurred, according to Jahn (“History of the Hebrew Commonwealth”), in the year 607 BC, and in the 368th year after the revolt of the ten tribes. According to Ussher, it was in the 369th year of the revolt, and 606 BC. The computation of Ussher is the one generally received, but the difference of a year in the reckoning is not material. Compare Michaelis, Anmerkung, to 2 Kings 24:1. Jehoiakim was a son of Josiah, a prince who was distinguished for his piety (2 Kings 22:2; 2 Chronicles 35:1–7).

After the death of Josiah, the people raised Jehoahaz, the youngest son of Josiah, to the throne of Judah, probably because he appeared better qualified to reign than his elder brother (2 Kings 23:30; 2 Chronicles 36:1). He was a wicked prince, and after he had been on the throne three months, he was removed by Pharaoh-nechoh, king of Egypt, who returned to Jerusalem from the conquest of Phoenicia and placed his elder brother, Eliakim, to whom he gave the name of Jehoiakim, on the throne (2 Kings 23:34; 2 Chronicles 36:4).

Jehoahaz was first imprisoned in Riblah (2 Kings 23:33) and was afterward removed to Egypt (2 Chronicles 36:4). Jehoiakim, an unworthy son of Josiah, was, in reality, as he is represented by Jeremiah, one of the worst kings who reigned over Judah. His reign continued eleven years; since he came to the throne in 611 BC, his reign continued to the year 600 BC.

In the third year of his reign, after the battle of Megiddo, Pharaoh-nechoh undertook a second expedition against Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, with a numerous army, drawn in part from Western Africa, Libya, and Ethiopia (Jahn’s Hist. Heb. “Commonwealth,” p. 134).

This Nabopolassar, who is also called Nebuchadnezzar I, was at this time, as Berosus relates, aged and infirm. He therefore gave up a part of his army to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who defeated the Egyptian host at Carchemish (Circesium) on the Euphrates and drove Nechoh out of Asia.

The victorious prince marched directly to Jerusalem, which was then under the sovereignty of Egypt. After a short siege Jehoiakim surrendered, and was again placed on the throne by the Babylonian prince.

Nebuchadnezzar took part of the furniture of the temple as booty and carried back with him to Babylon several young men, the sons of the principal Hebrew nobles, among whom were Daniel and his three friends referred to in this chapter. It is not improbable that one object in conveying them to Babylon was that they might be hostages for the submission and good order of the Hebrews in their own land.

It is at this time that the Babylonian sovereignty over Judah commences, commonly called the Babylonian captivity, which, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:1–14; Jeremiah 29:10), was to continue seventy years. In Jeremiah 25:1 and Jeremiah 46:2, it is said that this was in the fourth year of Jehoiakim; in the passage before us, it is said that it was the third year.

This difference, says Jahn, arises from a different mode of computation: “Jehoiakim came to the throne at the end of the year, which Jeremiah reckons as the first (and such a mode of reckoning is not uncommon), but Daniel, neglecting the incomplete year, numbers one less.” For a more full and complete examination of the objection to the genuineness of Daniel from this passage, I would refer to Professor Stuart on Daniel, “Excursus” I. (See Appendix I. to this Volume.)

And besieged it - Jerusalem was a strongly fortified place, and it was not easy to take it, except as the result of a siege. It was, perhaps, never carried by direct and immediate assault. Compare 2 Kings 25:1–3, for an account of a siege of Jerusalem a second time by Nebuchadnezzar. At that time the city was besieged about a year and a half. How long the siege here referred to continued is not specified.

And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand - Jehoiakim was taken captive, and it seems that there was an intention to convey him to Babylon (2 Chronicles 36:6). However, for some reason, he was not removed there but died at Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:5–6), though he was not honorably buried there (Jeremiah 22:19; Jeremiah 36:30).

In the second book of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 36:6), it is said that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and bound Jehoiakim in fetters, to take him to Babylon. Jahn supposes that an error has crept into the text in the book of Chronicles, as there is no evidence that Jehoiakim was taken to Babylon.

However, it appears from 2 Kings 24:1–2 that Jehoiakim was continued in authority at Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar for three years and then rebelled against him. Nebuchadnezzar then sent against him bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it.

There is no need to suppose an error in the text of the account in the book of Chronicles. It is probable that Jehoiakim was taken and that the intention was to take him to Babylon, according to the account in Chronicles. However, for some unmentioned reason, the Chaldean monarch's purpose was changed. Jehoiakim was placed again over Judah under Nebuchadnezzar, according to the account in the book of Kings, and he remained in this condition for three years until he rebelled. Then the bands of Chaldeans and others were sent against him.

It is probable that at this time, perhaps while the siege was ongoing, he died. The Chaldeans then dragged his dead body out of the gates of the city and left it unburied, as Jeremiah had predicted (Jeremiah 22:19; Jeremiah 36:30).

With part of the vessels of the house of God - (2 Chronicles 36:7). Another portion of the vessels of the temple at Jerusalem was taken away by Nebuchadnezzar in the time of Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim's successor (2 Chronicles 36:10).

On the third invasion of Palestine, the same thing was repeated on a more extensive scale (2 Kings 24:13). At the fourth and final invasion, under Zedekiah, when the temple was destroyed, all its treasures were carried away (2 Kings 25:6–20).

A part of these treasures was brought back under Cyrus (Ezra 1:7), and the rest under Darius (Ezra 6:5).

Why they were not all taken away at first does not appear. Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar did not then intend to overthrow the Hebrew nation completely but meant to keep them as a tributary people to him. The temple was not destroyed at that time; he probably still allowed the worship of Jehovah to be celebrated there and would naturally leave such vessels as were absolutely necessary to maintain the services of public worship.

Which he carried into the land of Shinar - This refers to the region around Babylon. The exact limits of this country are unknown, but it probably embraced the region known as Mesopotamia—the country between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. The derivation of the name "Shinar" is unknown. It occurs only in Genesis 10:10; Genesis 11:2; Genesis 14:1, 9; Joshua 7:21; Isaiah 11:11; Daniel 1:2; and Zechariah 5:11.

To the house of his god - This refers to the temple of Bel at Babylon. This was a temple of great magnificence, and the worship of Bel was celebrated there with great splendor. For a description of this temple and of the god who was worshipped there, see the notes at Isaiah 46:1. These vessels were later brought out at Belshazzar's command during his celebrated feast and used in the conviviality and revelry of that occasion .

And he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god - It seems from this that the vessels had been taken to the temple of Bel, or Belus, in Babylon, not to be used in the worship of the idol, but to be stored among the valuable treasures there.

As the temples of the gods were sacred and regarded as inviolable, it would be natural to make them the repository of valuable spoils and treasures. Many of the spoils of the Romans were suspended around the walls of the temples of their gods, particularly in the temple of Victory. (Compare Eschenberg, “Manual of Class.” Literally, pt. iii. Sections 149, 150.)

And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs — On the general reasons which may have influenced the king to make the selection of the youths here mentioned, see the analysis of the chapter. Of Ashpenaz, nothing more is known than is stated here. Eunuchs were then, as they are now, in constant employment in the harems of the East, and they often rose to great influence and power. A large portion of the slaves employed at the courts in the East, and in the houses of the wealthy, are eunuchs. Compare Burckhardt’s “Travels in Nubia,” pp. 294, 295. They are regarded as the guardians of the female virtue of the harem, but their situation gives them great influence, and they often rise high in the favor of their employers, and often become the principal officers of the court.

“The chief of the black eunuchs is still, at the court of the Sultan, which is arranged much in accordance with the ancient court of Persia, an officer of the highest dignity. He is called Kislar-Aga, the overseer of the women, and is the chief of the black eunuchs, who guard the harem, or the apartments of the females. The Kislar-Aga enjoys, through his situation, a vast influence, especially in regard to the offices of the court, the principal Agas deriving their situations through him.” See Jos. von Hammer’s “des Osmanischen Reichs Staatsverwaltung,” Volume I, p. 71, as quoted in Rosenmüller’s “Alte und neue Morgenland,” Volume II, pp. 357, 358.

That it is common in the East to desire that those employed in public service should have vigorous bodies, and beauty of form, and to train them for this, will be apparent from the following extract: “Curtius says, that in all barbarous or uncivilized countries, the stateliness of the body is held in great veneration; nor do they think him capable of great services or action to whom nature has not granted to give a beautiful form and aspect. It has always been the custom of eastern nations to choose such for their principal officers, or to wait on princes and great personages.”

Sir Paul Ricaut observes, ‘That the youths that are designed for the great offices of the Turkish empire must be of admirable features and looks, well shaped in their bodies, and without any defect of nature; for it is conceived that a corrupt and sordid soul can scarcely inhabit in a serene and ingenuous aspect; and I have observed, not only in the seraglio, but also in the courts of great men, their personal attendants have been of comely vigorous youths, well dressed, carrying themselves with singular modesty and respect in the presence of their masters; so that when a Pascha Aga Spahi travels, he is always attended with a comely equipage, followed by flourishing youths, well clothed, and mounted, in great numbers.’ — Burder. This may serve to explain the reason of the arrangement made in respect to these Hebrew youths.

That he should bring certain of the children of Israel — Hebrew, “of the sons of Israel.” Nothing can with certainty be determined respecting their “age” by the use of this expression, for the phrase means merely the descendants of Jacob, or Israel, that is, “Jews,” and it would be applied to them at any time of life. It would seem, however, from subsequent statements, that those who were selected were young men. It is evident that young men would be better qualified for the object contemplated — to be “trained” in the language and the sciences of the Chaldeans (Daniel 1:4) — than those who were at a more advanced period of life.

And of the king’s seed, and of the princes — That the most illustrious, and the most promising of them were to be selected; those who would be most adapted to accomplish the object which he had in view. Compare the analysis of the chapter. It is probable that the king presumed that among the royal youths who had been made captive there would be found those of most talent, and of course those best qualified to impart dignity and honor to his government, as well as those who would be most likely to be qualified to make known future events by the interpretation of dreams, and by the prophetic intimations of the Divine will.

Children in whom was no blemish - The word rendered “children” in this place (ילדים y^elâdı̂ym) is different from that which is rendered “children” in (Job 1:3) — בנים (bânnı̂ym). That word denotes merely that they were “sons,” or “descendants,” of Israel, without implying anything in regard to their age; the word here used would be appropriate only to those who were at an early period of life, and makes it certain that the king meant that those who were selected should be youths. Compare (Genesis 4:23), where the word is rendered “a young man.” It is sometimes, indeed, used to denote a son, without reference to age, and is then synonymous with בן (bên) — a “son.” But it properly means “one born;” that is, “recently born;” a child, (Genesis 21:8; Exodus 1:17; Exodus 2:3); and then one in early life.

There can be no doubt that the monarch meant to designate youths. So the Vulgate, pueros, and the Greek, νεανισκους (neaniskous) — and so the Syriac. All these words would be applicable to those who were in early life, or to young men. Compare Introduction to Daniel, Section I. The word “blemish” refers to bodily defect or imperfection. The object was to select those who were most perfect in form, perhaps partly because it was supposed that beautiful youths would most grace the court, and partly because it was supposed that such would be likely to have the brightest intellectual endowments.

It was regarded as essential to personal beauty to be without blemish, (2 Samuel 14:25): But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for beauty; from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. (Song of Solomon 4:7): Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee. The word is sometimes used in a moral sense, to denote corruption of heart or life (Deuteronomy 32:5; Job 11:15; Job 31:7), but that is not the meaning here.

But well-favored - Hebrew, “good of appearance;” that is, beautiful.

And skillful in all wisdom - Intelligent, wise — that is, in all that was esteemed wise in their own country. The object was to bring forward the most talented and intelligent, as well as the most beautiful, among the Hebrew captives.

And cunning in knowledge - In all that could be known. The distinction between the word here rendered “knowledge” (דעת da‛ath) and the word rendered “science” (מדע maddâ‛) is not apparent. Both come from the word ידע (yâda‛) to “know,” and would be applicable to any kind of knowledge. The word rendered “cunning” is also derived from the same root, and means “knowing,” or “skilled in.” We more commonly apply the word to a particular kind of knowledge, meaning artful, shrewd, astute, sly, crafty, designing. But this was not the meaning of the word when the translation of the Bible was made, and it is not employed in that sense in the Scriptures. It is always used in a good sense, meaning intelligent, skillful, experienced, well-instructed.

Compare (Genesis 25:27; Exodus 26:1; Exodus 28:15; Exodus 38:23; 1 Samuel 16:16; 1 Chronicles 25:7; Psalms 137:5; Isaiah 3:3).

And understanding science - That is, the sciences which prevailed among the Hebrews. They were not a nation distinguished for “science,” in the sense in which that term is now commonly understood — embracing astronomy, chemistry, geology, mathematics, electricity, etc.; but their science extended chiefly to music, architecture, natural history, agriculture, morals, theology, war, and the knowledge of future events; in all which they occupied an honorable distinction among the nations. In many of these respects they were, doubtless, far in advance of the Chaldeans; and it was probably the purpose of the Chaldean monarch to avail himself of what they knew.

And such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace - Hebrew, “had strength” — כח (kôach). Properly meaning, who had strength of body for the service which would be required of them in attending on the court. “A firm constitution of body is required for those protracted services of standing in the hall of the royal presence.” - Grotius. The word “palace” here (היכל hêykâl) is commonly used to denote the temple (2 Kings 24:13; 2 Chronicles 3:17; Jeremiah 50:28; Haggai 2:15). Its proper and primitive signification, however, is a large and magnificent building — a palace — and it was given to the temple as the “palace” of Jehovah, the abode where He dwelt as king of His people.

And whom they might teach - That they might be better qualified for the duties to which they might be called. The purpose was, doubtless (see analysis), to bring forward their talent, that it might contribute to the splendor of the Chaldean court; but as they were, doubtless, ignorant to a great extent of the language of the Chaldeans, and as there were sciences in which the Chaldeans were supposed to excel, it seemed desirable that they should have all the advantage which could be derived from a careful training under the best masters.

The learning - — ספר (sêpher), literally, “writing” (Isaiah 29:11–12). Gesenius supposes that this means the “writing” of the Chaldeans; or that they might be able to read the language of the Chaldeans. But it, doubtless, included “the knowledge” of what was written, as well as the ability “to read” what was written; that is, the purpose was to instruct them in the sciences which were understood among the Chaldeans. They were distinguished chiefly for such sciences as these:

1. Astronomy. This science is commonly supposed to have had its origin on the plains of Babylon, and it was early carried there to as high a degree of perfection as it attained in any of the ancient nations. Their mild climate, and their employment as shepherds, leading them to pass much of their time at night under the open heavens, gave them the opportunity of observing the stars, and they amused themselves in marking their positions and their changes, and in mapping out the heavens in a variety of fanciful figures, now called constellations.
2. Astrology. This was at first a branch of astronomy, or was almost identical with it, for the stars were studied principally to endeavor to ascertain what influence they exerted over the fates of men, and especially what might be predicted from their position, on the birth of an individual, as to his future life. Astrology was then deemed a science whose laws were to be ascertained in the same way as the laws of any other science; and the world has been slow to disabuse itself of the notion that the stars exert an influence over the fates of men. Even Lord Bacon held that it was a science to be “reformed,” not wholly rejected.
3. Magic; soothsaying; divination; or whatever would contribute to lay open the future, or disclose the secrets of the invisible world. Hence, they applied themselves to the interpretation of dreams; they made use of magical arts, probably employing, as magicians do, some of the ascertained results of science in producing optical illusions, impressing the common with the belief that they were familiar with the secrets of the invisible world; and hence, the name “Chaldean” and “magician” became almost synonymous terms (Daniel 2:2; Daniel 4:7; Daniel 5:7).
4. It is not improbable that they had made advances in other sciences, but of this we have little knowledge. They knew little of the true laws of astronomy, geology, chemistry, electricity, mathematics; and in these, and in kindred departments of science, they may be supposed to have been almost wholly ignorant.

And the tongue of the Chaldeans - In regard to the “Chaldeans,” see the notes at (Job 1:17); and the notes at (Isaiah 23:13). The kingdom of Babylon was composed mainly of Chaldeans, and that kingdom was called “the realm of the Chaldeans” (Daniel 9:1). Of that realm, or kingdom, Babylon was the capital. The origin of the Chaldeans has been a subject of great perplexity, on which there is still a considerable variety of opinions. According to Heeren, they came from the North; by Gesenius they are supposed to have come from the mountains of Kurdistan; and by Michaelis, from the steppes of Scythia. They seem to have been an extended race, and probably occupied the whole of the region adjacent to what became Babylonia.

Heeren expresses his opinion as to their origin in the following language: “It cannot be doubted that, at some remote period, antecedent to the commencement of historical records, ‘one mighty race’ possessed these vast plains, varying in character according to the country which they inhabited; in the deserts of Arabia, pursuing a nomad life; in Syria, applying themselves to agriculture, and taking up settled abodes; in Babylonia, erecting the most magnificent cities of ancient times; and in Phoenicia, opening the earliest ports, and constructing fleets, which secured to them the commerce of the known world.”

There exists at the present time, in the vicinity of the Bahrein Islands, and along the Persian Gulf, in the neighborhood of the Astan River, an Arab tribe, of the name of the “Beni Khaled,” who are probably the same people as the “Gens Chaldei” of Pliny, and doubtless the descendants of the ancient race of the Chaldeans. On the question when they became a kingdom, or realm, making Babylon their capital, see the notes at (Isaiah 23:13). Compare, for an interesting discussion of the subject, “Forster’s Historical Geography of Arabia,” vol. i. pp. 49-56.

The language of the Chaldeans, in which a considerable part of the book of Daniel is written (see the Introduction Section IV., III.), differed from the Hebrew, though it was a branch of the same Aramean family of languages. It was, indeed, very closely allied to the Hebrew, but was so different that those who were acquainted with only one of the two languages could not understand the other. Compare (Nehemiah 8:8). Both were the offspring of the original Shemitish language. This original language may be properly reduced to three great branches:

1. The Aramean, which prevailed in Syria, Babylonia, and Mesopotamia; and which may, therefore, be divided into the Syriac or West-Aramean, and the Chaldee or East-Aramean, called after the Babylonian Aramean.
2. The Hebrew, with which the fragments of the Phoenician coincide.
3. The Arabic, under which belongs the Ethiopic as a dialect.

The Aramean, which, after the return from the Babylonian captivity, was introduced into Palestine, and which prevailed in the time of the Saviour, is commonly called the Syro-Chaldaic, because it was a mixture of the Eastern and Western dialects. The Chaldee, or East Aramean, and the Hebrew, had in general the same stock of original words, but they differed in several respects, such as the following:

1. Many words of the old primitive language which had remained in one dialect had been lost in the other.
2. The same word was current in both dialects, but in different significations, because in the one it retained the primitive signification, while in the other it had acquired different meaning.
3. The Babylonian dialect had borrowed expressions from the Northern Chaldeans, who had made various irruptions into the country. These expressions were foreign to the Shemitish dialects, and belonged to the Japhetian language, which prevailed among the Armenians, the Medes, the Persians, and the Chaldeans, who were probably related to these. Traces of these foreign words are found in the names of the officers of state, and in expressions having reference to the government.
4. The Babylonian pronunciation was more easy and more sonorous than the Hebrew. It exchanged the frequent sibilants of the Hebrew, and the other consonants which were hard to pronounce, for others which were less difficult: it dropped the long vowels which were not essential to the forms of words; it preferred the more sonorous “a” to the long “o,” and assumed at the end of nouns, in order to lighten the pronunciation, a prolonged auxiliary vowel (the so-called emphatic א (')); it admitted contractions in pronouncing many words, and must have been, as the language of common life, far better adapted to the sluggish Orientals than the harsher Hebrew.

See an article “On the Prevalence of the Aramean Language in Palestine in the age of Christ and the Apostles,” by Henry F. Pfannkuche, in the “Biblical Repository,” vol. i. pp. 318, 319. On this verse also, compare the notes at (Isaiah 39:7).

And the king appointed them - Calvin supposes that this arrangement was resorted to in order to render them effeminate, and, by a course of luxurious living, to induce them gradually to forget their own country, and that with the same view their names were changed. But there is no evidence that this was the object. The purpose was manifestly to train them in the manner in which it was supposed they would be best fitted, in bodily health, in personal beauty, and in intellectual attainments, to appear at court; and it was presumed that the best style of living which the realm furnished would contribute to this end. That the design was not to make them effeminate is apparent from Daniel 1:15.

A daily provision - Hebrew, “The thing of a day in his day;” that is, he assigned to them each day a portion of what had been prepared for the royal meal. It was not a permanent provision, but one which was made each day. The word rendered “provision”—פת path—means a bit, “crumb,” “morsel” (Genesis 18:5; Judges 19:5; Psalms 147:17).

Of the king’s meat - The word “meat” here means “food,” as it does uniformly in the Bible, the Old English word having this signification when the translation was made, and not being limited then, as it is now, to animal food. The word in the original—בג bag—is of Persian origin, meaning “food.” The two words are frequently compounded—פתבג path^ebag (Daniel 1:5, 8, 13, 15-16; Daniel 11:26); and the compound means delicate food, dainties; literally, food of the father, that is, the king; or, according to Lorsbach, in Archiv. f. “Morgenl.” Litt. II., 313, food for idols, or the gods—in either case denoting delicate food; luxurious living. - Gesenius, “Lex.”

And of the wine which he drank - Margin, “of his drink.” Such wine as the king was accustomed to drink. It may be presumed that this was the best kind of wine. From anything that appears, this was furnished to them in abundance; and with the leisure which they had, they could hardly be thrown into stronger temptation to excessive indulgence.

So nourishing them three years - As long as was supposed to be necessary in order to develop their physical beauty and strength, and to make them well acquainted with the language and learning of the Chaldeans. The object was to prepare them to give as much dignity and ornament to the court as possible.

That at the end of it they might stand before the king - (see notes on Daniel 1:4). On the arrangements made to bring forward these youths, the editor of the “Pictorial Bible” makes the following remarks, showing the correspondence between these arrangements and what usually occurs in the East: “There is not a single intimation which may not be illustrated from the customs of the Turkish seraglio until some alterations were made in this, as in other matters, by the present sultan (Mahmoud). The pages of the seraglio, and officers of the court, as well as the greater part of the public functionaries and governors of provinces, were originally Christian boys, taken captive in war, or bought or stolen in time of peace. The finest and most capable of these were sent to the palace, and, if accepted, were placed under the charge of the chief of the white eunuchs. The lads did not themselves become eunuchs; which we notice, because it has been erroneously inferred, that Daniel and the other Hebrew youths “must” have been made eunuchs, “because” they were committed to the care of the chief eunuch.

The accepted lads were brought up in the religion of their masters; and there were schools in the palace where they received such complete instruction in Turkish learning and science as it was the lot of few others to obtain. Among their accomplishments we find it mentioned, that the greatest pains were taken to teach them to speak the Turkish language (a foreign one to them) with the greatest purity, as spoken at court. Compare this with Teach them the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans. The lads were clothed very neatly, and well, but temperately dieted. They slept in large chambers, where there were rows of beds.

Every one slept separately; and between every third or fourth bed lay a white eunuch, who served as a sort of guard, and was bound to keep a careful eye upon the lads near him, and report his observations to his superior. When any of them arrived at a proper age, they were instructed in military exercises, and pains taken to make them active, robust, and brave.

Every one, also, according to the custom of the country, was taught some mechanical or liberal art, to serve him as a resource in adversity. When their education was completed in all its branches, those who had displayed the most capacity and valor were employed about the person of the king, and the rest given to the service of the treasury, and the other offices of the extensive establishment to which they belonged. In due time the more talented or successful young men got promoted to the various high court offices which gave them access to the private apartments of the seraglio, so that they at almost any time could see and speak to their great master. This advantage soon paved the way for their promotion to the government of provinces, and to military commands; and it has often happened that favorite court officers have stepped at once into the post of grand vizier, or chief minister, and other high offices of state, without having previously been abroad in the world as pashas and military commanders.

How well this agrees with, and illustrates the usage of the Babylonian court, will clearly appear to the reader without particular indication. See Habesci’s “Ottoman Empire;” Tavernier’s “Relation de l’Interieur du Sérail du Grand Seigneur.”