§ 1. Since ancient profane histories, if compared with sacred history, are judged to possess no antiquity, I have determined at the outset to dispute concerning magistrates from Scripture, so that we may examine the form and magistrates of the first Monarchy, which is that of the Chaldaeans. They are described in Daniel 3:2: “Therefore King Nebuchadnezzar sent to assemble the Satraps, Magistrates, Judges, Tyrants, and Prefects, and all the Princes of the regions, so that they might come to the dedication of the statue which King Nebuchadnezzar had erected. Then the Satraps, Magistrates, Judges, Commanders, Tyrants, and nobles who had been placed in authority, and all the Princes of the regions, were assembled, so that they might come to the dedication of the statue which King Nebuchadnezzar had erected; and they stood in the sight of the statue which Nebuchadnezzar had set up.”
From these words the constitution of the most ancient Monarchy is in some manner understood; for the Greek writers vary and deceive. Daniel himself teaches us that this arrangement was approved: although he says that wisdom was in him beyond that in all men, and although he was Prince of the wise men and magistrates, he wished to approve that administration. Darius also resolved to institute this arrangement in chapter 6, verse 1. Let us therefore behold this first Monarchy furnished with magistrates: that great tree, the golden head of the mystical statue.
§ 2. In this Empire one man after the King possessed the highest authority, and three others beneath the King and beneath that man, although they had diverse provinces subject to them. This is explained in chapter 2, verse 48: “Then the King raised Daniel on high and gave him many and great gifts; and he appointed him Prince over all the provinces of Babylon and Prefect of the Magistrates over all the wise men of Babylon. But Daniel petitioned the King, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego over the works of the province of Babylon; Daniel himself, however, was in the gates of the King.”
Although he is said to have been appointed over the provinces of Babylon and over the wise men of Babylon, and this could be restricted to the province of Babylon alone, I nevertheless understand it of all the Magistrates of the whole kingdom, however widely it extended. That the Monarchy was very great we understand from the fact that the Persian was smaller. Daniel 11:37 calls that man King of Kings, and in 4 Kings 25:27 he commands many kingdoms. Wherever Daniel says, אנת מלכא, “you, O King,” and מלך מלכיא, “King of Kings,” he places the Hebrew between two Chaldaic words, to show that he was an eminent King even of the people of God. That many Kings were with him in Babylon is evident from the same words, for he placed the throne of Jehoiachin above the throne of the Kings who were at Babylon. From Jeremiah 37 we are taught that there were Kings of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt, many nations and great Kings. I affirm that Daniel presided over all these. For he presided over the Magistrates and wise men of Babylon, and they were the head of the whole Monarchy, just as, if someone presided over all the Roman Magistrates, he would be judged also to command Proconsuls and provincial Magistrates. Pompey was such when the care of the grain supply and the Piratical War were entrusted to him; for, as Cicero testifies, by the people’s bill he possessed more power over all the provinces than those who held them with imperium. If therefore he was Prince of those who governed all things, there is no doubt that he was also Prince of all.
Then the Chaldaic words indicate this: רב רברבין, “Prince of great Princes.” For רב signifies a great Prince, a word which the Hebrews also employed after receiving it from the Chaldaeans. Rabbi David interprets it “great Prince”; on Isaiah 42:25 the same David interprets it “Kings of the nations,” and on Jeremiah 20:1 Rabbi Saadiah, “Princes of the army.” Finally, the Perso-Median Empire arose from the Chaldaean or Babylonian, and it possessed Daniel as its wisest lawgiver, as is evident from chapter 6, verse 1: “It pleased Darius, and he appointed over the kingdom one hundred and twenty Satraps, that they might be throughout his whole kingdom; and over them three Princes, of whom Daniel was one, so that the Satraps might render account to them and the King might not sustain trouble.”
The counsel of Daniel, a most wise man, under Darius was such as it had been under Nebuchadnezzar: namely, that three should be appointed over all the affairs, and one of these should be Prince. Their power extended through all parts of the kingdom. No one doubts that the Persians borrowed very many things from the Babylonians. And God brought it about that, although the Persians and Medes were the most ferocious of nations, they had Daniel as governor, lest by the cruelty of ruling they should altogether violate human society. By this it came about that the Persian Empire was constituted at its beginning by the best laws.
Josephus therefore deservedly calls Daniel:
ἁπάσης ἐπίτροπον βασιλείας
curator of the whole kingdom. The Persian custom of appointing a Surena confirms this opinion; he takes his name from Sar, שר, which signifies a Prince. Plutarch describes his dignity in the Crassus:
Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν τῶν τυχόντων ὁ Σουρήνας, ἀλλὰ πλούτῳ μὲν καὶ γένει καὶ δόξῃ μετὰ βασιλέα δεύτερος, ἀνδρείᾳ δὲ καὶ δεινότητι τῶν καθ’ αὑτὸν ἐν Πάρθοις πρῶτος· ἔτι δὲ ἐξήλαυνε καθ’ ἑαυτὸν ἀεὶ χιλίας σκευοφορούμενος καμήλοις, ᾧ διακοσίας ἀπήγετο παλλακίδων, ἱππεῖς δὲ κατάφρακτοι χίλιοι, πλείονες δὲ τῶν κούφων παρέπεμπον· εἶχε δὲ τοὺς σύμπαντας ἱππεῖς ὁμοῦ πελάτας τε καὶ δούλους, μυρίων οὐκ ἀποδέοντας.
Nor was Surena one of the common people; rather, in riches, family, and glory he was second to the King, and in courage and keenness first among those about him among the Parthians. A thousand camels carried his baggage; two hundred wagons conveyed his concubines; there were a thousand cuirassed horsemen, and more lightly armed horsemen; his cavalry, clients, and servants together were not fewer than ten thousand.
Darius therefore intended to make Daniel Surena and adorn him with that power which he had formerly possessed under Nebuchadnezzar, whose memory was then celebrated. Those words of verse 49 also show it: “But Daniel was in the gates of the King,” בתרע מלכא, “in the gate”; the Seventy have ἐν τῇ αὐλῇ, “in the court.” He was not the supreme officer of admission such as existed later among the Emperors of Constantinople, nor like the Persian φύλακες, “guards,” or ἀγγελιοφόροι, “messengers”; rather, he was Prince of those who judged and gave counsels to the King. He was therefore the head of both the domestic and the external Princes, not a bodyguard or keeper of the royal person. For it was an ancient custom that the greatest Princes should be about the King, both for dignity and for counsel and safety. In Xenophon, books 1 and 2, they are called παῖδες. The Princes of the Persians, whom they call ὁμοτίμους, “peers in honor,” were always in the court of the palace; and in book 8:
Ἐπίτιμος ἀεὶ παραγένοιτο ἐπὶ θύραις καὶ παρέχειν ἑαυτὸν εὐθὺς χρὴ εἰ βούλεται ὁ Κῦρος, ἱππεύειν σὺν ἵπποις καὶ ὅπλοις.
Men honored in rank were always to be present at the door and make themselves available for what Cyrus wished, if he desired it, and indeed with horses and arms.
In the same manner Haman was second to King Ahasuerus, Esther 3:1: “After these things King Ahasuerus exalted Haman, son of Hammedatha, who was of the stock of Agag, and placed his throne above theirs. And all the servants of the King who were present in the gates of the palace bent their knees and adored Haman, for so the Emperor had commanded; Mordecai alone did not bend his knee or adore him.” And his successor, chapter 10: “But King Ahasuerus made all the land and all the islands of the sea tributary; and his fortitude and Empire, and the dignity and sublimity with which he exalted Mordecai, are written in the books of the Medes and Persians; and how Mordecai, a man of the Jewish nation, was second to King Ahasuerus and great among the Jews and acceptable to the people of his brethren, seeking good things for his people and speaking those things which pertained to the peace of his seed.”
§ 3. Whether it is expedient for a Monarch to furnish one man with so great a power is debated not without cause. I have often taught that all things must not be conceded to one man and that the counsel and labor of one man alone must not be used. Here, however, the question concerns some Magistrate of the dignity next after the King, who can exist even though he does not possess great power by which he can rebel. I judge thus.
Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, with most prudent counsel, placed over the entire kingdom Daniel, whom they had known to be full of the Spirit of God and of wisdom, since they feared no rebellion from him and were certain that Daniel would order all things most wisely. I think the same concerning Mordecai.
Next, good Persian Kings followed this mode by their example; for the advantage in this matter is evident, both because an account of the sum of all affairs can be demanded from one man and reported to the King, and because greater care in discharging office is instilled into all when they know that an account must be rendered to many. For the King cannot attend even to all great matters; therefore another whom the King greatly trusts more readily performs his functions.
Nor will it be difficult to provide against the possibility that this man rise against the King or seize a tyranny. If the King himself is vigorous, prudent, and active; if he himself hears the provincial Governors and visits the armies and cities, the general Prefect will not easily be able to contrive anything. But if, after the example given by Ninyas, son of Ninus and Semiramis, among the Assyrian Kings, he is rarely seen by his subjects, grows old among his household servants, and gives replies through intermediaries, not only the Prefect second to the King but even a τῶν εἰσαγγελιῶν χιλίαρχος, such as appears in Aelian, book 1, chapter 21, will without difficulty crush the King. Thus the Kings of the Franks perished through indolence, when the Mayor of the Palace, after usurping power, seized even the title of the kingdom. Haman assuredly would never have thought of transferring the kingdom to the Macedonians unless he had judged Ahasuerus a savage, hated, luxurious, and foolish King. Besides, what came into Ahasuerus’s mind, that he raised a Macedonian, a man of a hostile nation, to such power?
I therefore judge that the least danger threatens from the man himself; for even if he enjoys the highest dignity, he will not easily transfer the kingdom to another when he cannot obtain a greater honor. For why should he transfer the government, with disgrace and the mark of betrayal, to another, when he himself receives the second share of its fruit? A prudent Emperor can readily prevent him from arrogating power to himself: if he furnishes him neither with an army nor with excessive riches; if he decides nothing in greater affairs except by the consent and command of the King; if the court itself is exempt from his command; finally, if he chooses a modest, elderly, and learned man. In Spain some Archbishop is generally President of the supreme council or in the highest power. When Charles departed, he placed Adrian, afterward Pope, over Spain. In ecclesiastics the administration is generally uncorrupted, and there is no fear of danger.
In the Roman Empire there was scarcely any use of this dignity. Men were called Caesars when the Empire was already declining, but they were those who were being trained in hope of the kingdom or had received the nearest hope of succession. Aelius Verus, adopted into Hadrian’s family, was the first to be called Caesar in this manner. Diocletian called Maximian and Constantius Caesars. But they were rather partners in the Empire; nevertheless, when the Senate named Titus and Domitian Caesars, it did not grant them partnership in the kingdom. Constantine created his three sons Caesars; Constantius created Gallus and Julian Caesars. Not without reason was that honor instituted by prudent men: both that they might cut off the wicked hopes of aspirants, and that by the enticement of honor they might attract to the safety of the state men of great spirit and those who relied upon some right.
§ 4. It is therefore fitting that there should be one supreme man; next to him among the Chaldaeans were three, as is evident from Daniel 3:49: “But Daniel petitioned the King, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego over the works of the province of Babylon.” I understand “works” as every office and labor, and at the same time understand them to have been placed over the province of Babylon in such a way that their power extended throughout the whole Monarchy. For as a consolation of the Jews exiled throughout the entire kingdom, God granted this: that so great a government should be ordered by captives. Darius afterward appointed three, to whom he permitted power in the whole kingdom, chapter 6. Afterward there were seven. Hence it is that those first Monarchies were better constituted at the beginning than the Roman Monarchy.
§ 5. The words of Daniel show that the Monarchy of the Chaldaeans was most orderly, for they are not placed idly. Let us therefore examine in them the Chaldaean Magistrates.
In the first place are set אחשדרפניא, which, if one wishes to explain Achaschdarphenaio separately, will be literally “a great man dwelling before the face,” because they dwell before the face of the King. In one word, it signifies a great companion of the King, or a familiar of the King. The Seventy translate it ὕπατοι, “Consuls,” “powerful men,” whose honor and power will be great; for among the Greeks Consuls were so called from their power. Our translator renders it “Satraps”; others “magnates,” others “Princes.” This alone appears to stand in the way: that Satraps did not dwell before the face of the King in the provinces over which they were placed. But those who reason thus are mistaken. For the Satraps possessed great dignity and were generally sent from the face of the King in the manner in which I spoke concerning Counts; then they possessed the right of approaching the King and dining with him, as I indicated concerning the ὁμοτίμοις, “peers in honor.” For those ancient Satraps must not be compared with our own, but with Viceroys and Princes, or with the Turkish Bashas and the Consuls and Proconsuls of the ancient Romans; hence the Seventy deservedly translated them ὕπατοι.
Rabshakeh proclaims their power in 4 Kings 18:24, saying that the Jews could not resist one Satrap among the least servants of his Lord. Although in that place the Hebrew calls him פחת, the Chaldaic שלטנים, and the Seventy τοπάρχας, men who were lesser than the Achaschdarphenaio, they were nevertheless so powerful that Rabshakeh preferred them to Hezekiah, King of Judah.
Herodotus, book 7, Ctesias in the Persian History, and Xenophon, book 1 of the Ἀναβάσεως, demonstrate their power also from this: that Satrapies were conferred upon the sons of Kings. And Justin, book 5, says that Cyrus was appointed by his father Darius as Satrap of Ionia and Lydia. Diodorus Siculus, book 11, says that Hystaspes, son of Artaxerxes, was Satrap in Bactria. Indeed, Cyrus, when dying, speaks thus in Xenophon, book 8 of the Education of Cyrus:
Σὺ μὲν ὦ Καμβύση τὴν βασιλείαν ἔχε, σοὶ δὲ ὦ Ταναοξάρη σατραπεύειν δίδωμι Μήδων τε καὶ Ἀρμενίων καὶ Καδουσίων.
“You, O Cambyses, possess the kingdom; but you, O Tanaoxares, I appoint Satrap of the Medes, Armenians, and Cadusians.” Thus Alexander, according to Plutarch, made Porus Satrap of his own kingdom. Aemilius Probus, in the Datames: one man is Satrap of Lydia and Ionia. Oroetes likewise is Satrap of these regions and of Phrygia, Herodotus, book 3. But Phrathrophernes in the same Herodotus is Παρθυαίων καὶ Ὑρκανίων, “of the Parthians and Hyrcanians,” that is, of two great kingdoms. Josephus, book 11, chapter 8, relates that there was one Satrap of Syria, Phoenicia, and Samaria. There were therefore in this Monarchy ἔπαρχοι, “governors,” with great power; for Plutarch also calls them this in his Sayings. Nor did they command merely over a broad region; rather, provinces were committed to their trust and power. For this was their first and highest law: to administer the state as they judged proper according to the common interest, fidelity, and religion.
Great majesty was also added to them. Oroetes in Herodotus, book 3, has a bodyguard of a thousand men; others had far greater ones. Every year an inspector was sent to them, whom they called the King’s brother or the King’s eye; the Satraps themselves frequently assembled at court. It is evident that the inspectors were ἐξάρχους, or former Satraps, who had been in the King’s council. From what has been said, it is evident that all these things were most wisely constituted.
§ 6. I said above that so great a power of the Satraps, when they are placed over several kingdoms, is dangerous unless restrained in another manner, yet salutary against an external enemy. And certainly it was not according to Daniel’s institution. For with him as Counselor Darius divided the Monarchy into one hundred and twenty provinces and placed the same number of Satraps over his kingdom, chapter 6, verse 1, where both the Greek and the Latin translate “Satraps,” and this is the word Achascharphenaio. The Persian kingdom, however, was not so extensive that it could have one hundred and twenty Satraps ruling over such broad territories, since it comprised not all Asia, together with Egypt and certain regions of Europe. This is nevertheless evident: if we consider the fertility and population of Asia, and if the provinces are divided among one hundred and twenty, the individual Satraps would be equal to Kings of moderate power. For Asia at one time indeed possessed as many powerful Kings, each of whom led two or three hundred thousand men into battle.
In the second place are those who in Hebrew, chapter 2, verse 48, are called סגניא; our translator renders them “Magistrates” and “Prefects,” and others in the same manner. The Seventy have στρατηγοὺς, “Commanders of war.” Among the Persians, as also among the Romans, it was a most honorable thing to possess an army; therefore military provinces were sought by brave and ambitious men. The text itself teaches us that these were military Magistrates: משכנא signifies tents, and נסא, a standard. It therefore indicates great Commanders of war, who defended all things in their provinces. They were not appointed by the Satraps or subject to them; indeed, they were suitable for restraining them. At Memphis one hundred and twenty thousand men were in garrison in the White Wall in the time of the Persians. To some it has appeared peculiar to the Persians, as also to this Monarchy, that the Satraps and military Commanders were distinct. Yet although this was preserved in part in the Persian Monarchy, that custom is not evident to have existed in Chaldaea from the words of Rabshakeh, who indicates that the Satraps engaged in war; and the Satraps of the Persians also administered war. Then it cannot happen that one military Magistrate and another civil one of equal power administer an affair harmoniously and advantageously in the same province. This was therefore peculiar to the τοῖς φρουράρχοις, namely, to those who guarded the fortifications; for the Satraps possessed no power over them.
Next follow the פחותא, phathavata, τοπάρχαι, “regional rulers”; others translate them “Governors,” others “Commanders,” and some “Praetors.” These men were not under the Satraps; indeed, they were Princes, but lesser ones. The word is common to Syrians, Chaldaeans, and Persians. Haggai 1:1 calls Zerubbabel פחת יהודה, Phachath Iehuda, “Commander of Judah.” And Nehemiah 5:14 calls Nehemiah a Commander and summons the former Commanders. When Nehemiah asks for letters to the Commanders beyond the river in chapter 2, verse 7, it is evident that there were several through whose dominion he was about to travel. Likewise Ezra 8:36, Esther 8:9, and 9:3 join them with the Achaschdarphenim, for letters are given to them by the King. I judge that they should be compared with Roman Governors and with our Counts—our Counts, I say, for formerly the dignity of Counts was greater than that of Dukes.
With these are joined אדרגזריא, Adargazraio. This office properly pertains to Judges; for they are so called as though confirmers of an opinion, decree, or statute, or men strong and magnificent in opinion or decree, whose decrees were ratified. They were therefore Presidents of the courts who administered justice, and tribunals were established in the individual provinces, as we now also see throughout Europe. The Greeks call them here ἡγεμόνας, “governors”; others νομοφύλακας, “guardians of the laws.” Our translator renders them “Commanders,” whose office was employed not only in war but also in peace.
Our translator renders “Tyrants,” whom the Chaldaic calls גדרבריא, gedabraia; the Seventy interpreters agree. גדד, gadad, is to make an incursion, plunder, cut, and divide; גדוד, a troop or band of raiders.
They are therefore Prefects of taxes to be collected from tithes, pasturage, and forests; for this reason they went about the fields and cities with a military force. Hence they are also named וגדברין, gedabrin, who requisitioned τὸ בר, bar, grain, and dispensed other things. Above all, however, they requisitioned grain for the army. Their office was especially hateful.
The Magistracy of those who are called דתבריא, detabraia, μεγάλοι ἐπ’ ἐξουσιῶν by the Seventy, was not very different. There is no doubt that they were γαζοφύλακας, “guardians of the treasury,” and Quaestors and curators of the treasury. I prefer to follow the interpretation of the Seventy rather than that of the Rabbis, because Rabbi Saadiah derives the meaning from דת, dath, “law,” and בריא, berhia, “purity.” I therefore think they were named from grain—that is, every tax on produce—because they exacted the canon or fixed assessment. But our translator understood it of the nobles in general and joins דתבריא דפתיא, detabraia diphthaia, “and the nobles who were placed in authority”; he then adds the Princes of the regions, שלטנים, Schultenim, who governed cities and their territories. Thus the whole state, furnished with its Magistrates, is briefly described in this passage; and in this manner, if anyone weighs these Persian affairs, he will easily find everything arranged.