Were Persian-Median kings illiterate?
In the Megillah, we read (6:1):
בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא נָדְדָה שְׁנַת הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר לְהָבִיא אֶת־סֵפֶר הַזִּכְרֹנוֹת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים וַיִּהְיוּ נִקְרָאִים לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ
On that night, the king's sleep was disturbed. He said to bring the book of chronicles, and they read it before the king.
Likewise, in Ezra 4:18, Artachshasta (who was either Koreish/Daryavesh, according to Rashi, or Achashveirosh, according to Ralbag) says that he had a letter read to him:
נִשְׁתְּוָנָא דִּי שְׁלַחְתּוּן עֲלֶינָא מְפָרַשׁ קֱרִי קָדָמָי
The letter which you have sent to me has been explained and read before me.
Why didn't these kings read the text themselves? At first, I thought maybe it was just the way of kings to have others read things to them, but we find that Jewish kings did read (Yehoram in Melachim 2:5:7, Yoshiah in ibid. 22:16 and 23:2), as well as Babylonian ones (Sanhedrin 22a explains that the handwriting on the wall was written in code, implying Belshatzar could read it otherwise).
According to the Ralbag, perhaps since Achashveirosh's father was a stable boy (Megillah 12b), he simply didn't have the education to know how to read. But Rashi learns that Artachshasta was a different king; what was his excuse?
I see three possibilities here:
- Specifically Persian-Median kings had the custom to be read to, rather than reading themselves.
- Persian-Median kings were incapable of reading.
- Persian-Median kings could read, but Achashveirosh was ill-educated, and Koreish...?
Which of these is correct?
megillat-esther ezra-nechemya
asked yesterday
DonielFDonielF
16.1k12584
add a comment |
In the Megillah, we read (6:1):
בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא נָדְדָה שְׁנַת הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר לְהָבִיא אֶת־סֵפֶר הַזִּכְרֹנוֹת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים וַיִּהְיוּ נִקְרָאִים לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ
On that night, the king's sleep was disturbed. He said to bring the book of chronicles, and they read it before the king.
Likewise, in Ezra 4:18, Artachshasta (who was either Koreish/Daryavesh, according to Rashi, or Achashveirosh, according to Ralbag) says that he had a letter read to him:
נִשְׁתְּוָנָא דִּי שְׁלַחְתּוּן עֲלֶינָא מְפָרַשׁ קֱרִי קָדָמָי
The letter which you have sent to me has been explained and read before me.
Why didn't these kings read the text themselves? At first, I thought maybe it was just the way of kings to have others read things to them, but we find that Jewish kings did read (Yehoram in Melachim 2:5:7, Yoshiah in ibid. 22:16 and 23:2), as well as Babylonian ones (Sanhedrin 22a explains that the handwriting on the wall was written in code, implying Belshatzar could read it otherwise).
According to the Ralbag, perhaps since Achashveirosh's father was a stable boy (Megillah 12b), he simply didn't have the education to know how to read. But Rashi learns that Artachshasta was a different king; what was his excuse?
I see three possibilities here:
- Specifically Persian-Median kings had the custom to be read to, rather than reading themselves.
- Persian-Median kings were incapable of reading.
- Persian-Median kings could read, but Achashveirosh was ill-educated, and Koreish...?
Which of these is correct?
megillat-esther ezra-nechemya
asked yesterday
DonielFDonielF
16.1k12584
Maybe it is easier to fall asleep when someone reads to you than when you read yourself? Might have to do with being able to stay in the dark when someone else reads
– mbloch
yesterday
Why generalize - "were they all..."? Even if some of them were what's the Nafka Mina? How vital is this for running a country? While the question is legit, I'd like you to specify your intention - what could be learned from it.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@AlBerko Why does it matter? Maybe it’s just a curiosity in the Pesukim.
– DonielF
yesterday
add a comment |
In the Megillah, we read (6:1):
בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא נָדְדָה שְׁנַת הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר לְהָבִיא אֶת־סֵפֶר הַזִּכְרֹנוֹת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים וַיִּהְיוּ נִקְרָאִים לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ
On that night, the king's sleep was disturbed. He said to bring the book of chronicles, and they read it before the king.
Likewise, in Ezra 4:18, Artachshasta (who was either Koreish/Daryavesh, according to Rashi, or Achashveirosh, according to Ralbag) says that he had a letter read to him:
נִשְׁתְּוָנָא דִּי שְׁלַחְתּוּן עֲלֶינָא מְפָרַשׁ קֱרִי קָדָמָי
The letter which you have sent to me has been explained and read before me.
Why didn't these kings read the text themselves? At first, I thought maybe it was just the way of kings to have others read things to them, but we find that Jewish kings did read (Yehoram in Melachim 2:5:7, Yoshiah in ibid. 22:16 and 23:2), as well as Babylonian ones (Sanhedrin 22a explains that the handwriting on the wall was written in code, implying Belshatzar could read it otherwise).
According to the Ralbag, perhaps since Achashveirosh's father was a stable boy (Megillah 12b), he simply didn't have the education to know how to read. But Rashi learns that Artachshasta was a different king; what was his excuse?
I see three possibilities here:
- Specifically Persian-Median kings had the custom to be read to, rather than reading themselves.
- Persian-Median kings were incapable of reading.
- Persian-Median kings could read, but Achashveirosh was ill-educated, and Koreish...?
Which of these is correct?
megillat-esther ezra-nechemya
asked yesterday
DonielFDonielF
16.1k12584
In the Megillah, we read (6:1):
בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא נָדְדָה שְׁנַת הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר לְהָבִיא אֶת־סֵפֶר הַזִּכְרֹנוֹת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים וַיִּהְיוּ נִקְרָאִים לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ
On that night, the king's sleep was disturbed. He said to bring the book of chronicles, and they read it before the king.
Likewise, in Ezra 4:18, Artachshasta (who was either Koreish/Daryavesh, according to Rashi, or Achashveirosh, according to Ralbag) says that he had a letter read to him:
נִשְׁתְּוָנָא דִּי שְׁלַחְתּוּן עֲלֶינָא מְפָרַשׁ קֱרִי קָדָמָי
The letter which you have sent to me has been explained and read before me.
Why didn't these kings read the text themselves? At first, I thought maybe it was just the way of kings to have others read things to them, but we find that Jewish kings did read (Yehoram in Melachim 2:5:7, Yoshiah in ibid. 22:16 and 23:2), as well as Babylonian ones (Sanhedrin 22a explains that the handwriting on the wall was written in code, implying Belshatzar could read it otherwise).
According to the Ralbag, perhaps since Achashveirosh's father was a stable boy (Megillah 12b), he simply didn't have the education to know how to read. But Rashi learns that Artachshasta was a different king; what was his excuse?
I see three possibilities here:
- Specifically Persian-Median kings had the custom to be read to, rather than reading themselves.
- Persian-Median kings were incapable of reading.
- Persian-Median kings could read, but Achashveirosh was ill-educated, and Koreish...?
Which of these is correct?
megillat-esther ezra-nechemya
megillat-esther ezra-nechemya
asked yesterday
DonielFDonielF
16.1k12584
asked yesterday
DonielFDonielF
16.1k12584
asked yesterday
DonielFDonielF
16.1k12584
asked yesterday
DonielFDonielF
16.1k12584
asked yesterday
DonielFDonielF
16.1k12584
16.1k12584
Maybe it is easier to fall asleep when someone reads to you than when you read yourself? Might have to do with being able to stay in the dark when someone else reads
– mbloch
yesterday
Why generalize - "were they all..."? Even if some of them were what's the Nafka Mina? How vital is this for running a country? While the question is legit, I'd like you to specify your intention - what could be learned from it.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@AlBerko Why does it matter? Maybe it’s just a curiosity in the Pesukim.
– DonielF
yesterday
add a comment |
Maybe it is easier to fall asleep when someone reads to you than when you read yourself? Might have to do with being able to stay in the dark when someone else reads
– mbloch
yesterday
Why generalize - "were they all..."? Even if some of them were what's the Nafka Mina? How vital is this for running a country? While the question is legit, I'd like you to specify your intention - what could be learned from it.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@AlBerko Why does it matter? Maybe it’s just a curiosity in the Pesukim.
– DonielF
yesterday
Maybe it is easier to fall asleep when someone reads to you than when you read yourself? Might have to do with being able to stay in the dark when someone else reads
– mbloch
yesterday
Maybe it is easier to fall asleep when someone reads to you than when you read yourself? Might have to do with being able to stay in the dark when someone else reads
– mbloch
yesterday
Why generalize - "were they all..."? Even if some of them were what's the Nafka Mina? How vital is this for running a country? While the question is legit, I'd like you to specify your intention - what could be learned from it.
– Al Berko
yesterday
Why generalize - "were they all..."? Even if some of them were what's the Nafka Mina? How vital is this for running a country? While the question is legit, I'd like you to specify your intention - what could be learned from it.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@AlBerko Why does it matter? Maybe it’s just a curiosity in the Pesukim.
– DonielF
yesterday
@AlBerko Why does it matter? Maybe it’s just a curiosity in the Pesukim.
– DonielF
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
In the case of Achashveirosh, Rashi writes:
(from sefaria)
לְהָבִיא אֶת סֵפֶר הַזִּכְרֹנוֹת. דֶּרֶךְ הַמְּלָכִים, כְּשֶׁשְּׁנָתָן נוֹדֶדֶת, אוֹמְרִים לִפְנֵיהֶם מְשָׁלִים וְשִׂיחוֹת עַד שֶׁשְּׁנָתָם חוֹזֶרֶת עֲלֵיהֶם.
To bring the book of archives. It is the custom of kings that when their sleep is disturbed, parables and tales are recounted before them until their sleep is restored.
Thus, regardless of whether he was literate or not, it would have been read to him.
In the case of Artachshasta, R. Mordechai Zer-Kavod quotes someone (I'm not sure who it is)1 who suggests that it was translated for him from Aramaic to Persian - again, not an indication that he was illiterate.
1 R. Mordechai Zer-Kavod agrues with this explanation, but JPS also explains it like this.
answered yesterday
PloniPloni
4,6601460
add a comment |
Books were cumbersome and heavy at the time, not the Capitalist small paperbacks the companies make today for profit!
Do you expect a king to take a 5kg book to bed at night to read or a 5m long scroll papyrus?
answered yesterday
dimachaerusdimachaerus
191
New contributor
dimachaerus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
It's not about "capitalist paperbacks". My soviet-printed books are just as small. It's about paper, and the printing press. Parchment is thicker and heavier than paper, and a human using ink and the pens of that time wouldn't be able to write as small as modern print without the ink smearing and the letters becoming unreadable.
– Galastel
yesterday
I also asked about a letter sent to Artachshasta. Certainly that was smaller.
– DonielF
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In the case of Achashveirosh, Rashi writes:
(from sefaria)
לְהָבִיא אֶת סֵפֶר הַזִּכְרֹנוֹת. דֶּרֶךְ הַמְּלָכִים, כְּשֶׁשְּׁנָתָן נוֹדֶדֶת, אוֹמְרִים לִפְנֵיהֶם מְשָׁלִים וְשִׂיחוֹת עַד שֶׁשְּׁנָתָם חוֹזֶרֶת עֲלֵיהֶם.
To bring the book of archives. It is the custom of kings that when their sleep is disturbed, parables and tales are recounted before them until their sleep is restored.
Thus, regardless of whether he was literate or not, it would have been read to him.
In the case of Artachshasta, R. Mordechai Zer-Kavod quotes someone (I'm not sure who it is)1 who suggests that it was translated for him from Aramaic to Persian - again, not an indication that he was illiterate.
1 R. Mordechai Zer-Kavod agrues with this explanation, but JPS also explains it like this.
answered yesterday
PloniPloni
4,6601460
add a comment |
In the case of Achashveirosh, Rashi writes:
(from sefaria)
לְהָבִיא אֶת סֵפֶר הַזִּכְרֹנוֹת. דֶּרֶךְ הַמְּלָכִים, כְּשֶׁשְּׁנָתָן נוֹדֶדֶת, אוֹמְרִים לִפְנֵיהֶם מְשָׁלִים וְשִׂיחוֹת עַד שֶׁשְּׁנָתָם חוֹזֶרֶת עֲלֵיהֶם.
To bring the book of archives. It is the custom of kings that when their sleep is disturbed, parables and tales are recounted before them until their sleep is restored.
Thus, regardless of whether he was literate or not, it would have been read to him.
In the case of Artachshasta, R. Mordechai Zer-Kavod quotes someone (I'm not sure who it is)1 who suggests that it was translated for him from Aramaic to Persian - again, not an indication that he was illiterate.
1 R. Mordechai Zer-Kavod agrues with this explanation, but JPS also explains it like this.
answered yesterday
PloniPloni
4,6601460
add a comment |
In the case of Achashveirosh, Rashi writes:
(from sefaria)
לְהָבִיא אֶת סֵפֶר הַזִּכְרֹנוֹת. דֶּרֶךְ הַמְּלָכִים, כְּשֶׁשְּׁנָתָן נוֹדֶדֶת, אוֹמְרִים לִפְנֵיהֶם מְשָׁלִים וְשִׂיחוֹת עַד שֶׁשְּׁנָתָם חוֹזֶרֶת עֲלֵיהֶם.
To bring the book of archives. It is the custom of kings that when their sleep is disturbed, parables and tales are recounted before them until their sleep is restored.
Thus, regardless of whether he was literate or not, it would have been read to him.
In the case of Artachshasta, R. Mordechai Zer-Kavod quotes someone (I'm not sure who it is)1 who suggests that it was translated for him from Aramaic to Persian - again, not an indication that he was illiterate.
1 R. Mordechai Zer-Kavod agrues with this explanation, but JPS also explains it like this.
answered yesterday
PloniPloni
4,6601460
In the case of Achashveirosh, Rashi writes:
(from sefaria)
לְהָבִיא אֶת סֵפֶר הַזִּכְרֹנוֹת. דֶּרֶךְ הַמְּלָכִים, כְּשֶׁשְּׁנָתָן נוֹדֶדֶת, אוֹמְרִים לִפְנֵיהֶם מְשָׁלִים וְשִׂיחוֹת עַד שֶׁשְּׁנָתָם חוֹזֶרֶת עֲלֵיהֶם.
To bring the book of archives. It is the custom of kings that when their sleep is disturbed, parables and tales are recounted before them until their sleep is restored.
Thus, regardless of whether he was literate or not, it would have been read to him.
In the case of Artachshasta, R. Mordechai Zer-Kavod quotes someone (I'm not sure who it is)1 who suggests that it was translated for him from Aramaic to Persian - again, not an indication that he was illiterate.
1 R. Mordechai Zer-Kavod agrues with this explanation, but JPS also explains it like this.
answered yesterday
PloniPloni
4,6601460
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
PloniPloni
4,6601460
answered yesterday
PloniPloni
4,6601460
answered yesterday
PloniPloni
4,6601460
4,6601460
add a comment |
add a comment |
Books were cumbersome and heavy at the time, not the Capitalist small paperbacks the companies make today for profit!
Do you expect a king to take a 5kg book to bed at night to read or a 5m long scroll papyrus?
answered yesterday
dimachaerusdimachaerus
191
New contributor
dimachaerus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
It's not about "capitalist paperbacks". My soviet-printed books are just as small. It's about paper, and the printing press. Parchment is thicker and heavier than paper, and a human using ink and the pens of that time wouldn't be able to write as small as modern print without the ink smearing and the letters becoming unreadable.
– Galastel
yesterday
I also asked about a letter sent to Artachshasta. Certainly that was smaller.
– DonielF
yesterday
add a comment |
Books were cumbersome and heavy at the time, not the Capitalist small paperbacks the companies make today for profit!
Do you expect a king to take a 5kg book to bed at night to read or a 5m long scroll papyrus?
answered yesterday
dimachaerusdimachaerus
191
New contributor
dimachaerus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
It's not about "capitalist paperbacks". My soviet-printed books are just as small. It's about paper, and the printing press. Parchment is thicker and heavier than paper, and a human using ink and the pens of that time wouldn't be able to write as small as modern print without the ink smearing and the letters becoming unreadable.
– Galastel
yesterday
I also asked about a letter sent to Artachshasta. Certainly that was smaller.
– DonielF
yesterday
add a comment |
Books were cumbersome and heavy at the time, not the Capitalist small paperbacks the companies make today for profit!
Do you expect a king to take a 5kg book to bed at night to read or a 5m long scroll papyrus?
answered yesterday
dimachaerusdimachaerus
191
New contributor
dimachaerus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Books were cumbersome and heavy at the time, not the Capitalist small paperbacks the companies make today for profit!
Do you expect a king to take a 5kg book to bed at night to read or a 5m long scroll papyrus?
answered yesterday
dimachaerusdimachaerus
191
New contributor
dimachaerus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
dimachaerusdimachaerus
191
New contributor
dimachaerus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
dimachaerusdimachaerus
191
answered yesterday
dimachaerusdimachaerus
191
191
New contributor
dimachaerus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
dimachaerus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
dimachaerus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
It's not about "capitalist paperbacks". My soviet-printed books are just as small. It's about paper, and the printing press. Parchment is thicker and heavier than paper, and a human using ink and the pens of that time wouldn't be able to write as small as modern print without the ink smearing and the letters becoming unreadable.
– Galastel
yesterday
I also asked about a letter sent to Artachshasta. Certainly that was smaller.
– DonielF
yesterday
add a comment |
2
It's not about "capitalist paperbacks". My soviet-printed books are just as small. It's about paper, and the printing press. Parchment is thicker and heavier than paper, and a human using ink and the pens of that time wouldn't be able to write as small as modern print without the ink smearing and the letters becoming unreadable.
– Galastel
yesterday
I also asked about a letter sent to Artachshasta. Certainly that was smaller.
– DonielF
yesterday
2
2
It's not about "capitalist paperbacks". My soviet-printed books are just as small. It's about paper, and the printing press. Parchment is thicker and heavier than paper, and a human using ink and the pens of that time wouldn't be able to write as small as modern print without the ink smearing and the letters becoming unreadable.
– Galastel
yesterday
It's not about "capitalist paperbacks". My soviet-printed books are just as small. It's about paper, and the printing press. Parchment is thicker and heavier than paper, and a human using ink and the pens of that time wouldn't be able to write as small as modern print without the ink smearing and the letters becoming unreadable.
– Galastel
yesterday
I also asked about a letter sent to Artachshasta. Certainly that was smaller.
– DonielF
yesterday
I also asked about a letter sent to Artachshasta. Certainly that was smaller.
– DonielF
yesterday
add a comment |
Maybe it is easier to fall asleep when someone reads to you than when you read yourself? Might have to do with being able to stay in the dark when someone else reads
– mbloch
yesterday
Why generalize - "were they all..."? Even if some of them were what's the Nafka Mina? How vital is this for running a country? While the question is legit, I'd like you to specify your intention - what could be learned from it.
– Al Berko
yesterday
@AlBerko Why does it matter? Maybe it’s just a curiosity in the Pesukim.
– DonielF
yesterday