squander the money entrusted to him, buries it in the earth, and keeps it safe for his master's return. After a long period has elajjsed, the master comes back and reckons with his servants. The first two slaves bring the capital they have originally received and that which they have made by trading. In each case they use the same formula ; each receives precisely the same commendation and reward. The third servant is conscious that he must find some excuse for his failure, and he throws the responsibility for it on the character of his master. He is a driving, avaricious man, determined to enrich himself even at the cost of dishonest reaping where others have sown. He was therefore afraid to trade with the money lest misfortune should overtake him, and he lose some or all of the capital entrusted to him. The master, without deigning to justify himself from the harsh character thus given to him, points out that were the slave right in his estimate, he ought at least to have taken the trouble to see that the money was entrusted to the bankers. Lazy as he was, he ought not to have grudged the trouble involved in taking the talent and flinging it down at the banker's, so that the capital might at least have accumulated interest. He is accordingly deprived of his talent, and it is given to him who has ten. And, of course, he cannot enter into the joy of his lord, but from the brilliantly lit banqueting-hall where the feast is held is thrust into the homeless darkness outside the mansion. He has proved himself a useless servant, and the penalty of use- lessness is that his master has no further use for him. (b) The parable of tlie Pounds (see art. Pound) has many significant points of contrast with that of the Talents, and the contrasts harmonize with the difi'erence of the situation presupposed. It is in this case not a merchant, but a nobleman, and his object in going to a far country is to receive a kingdom. It is, in fact, held by many that in the parable of the Pounds we have two parables blended together, one of Avhich described how a nobleman was ojiposed in his efforts to obtain a kingdom by his fellow-citizens, and how, having received the kingdom, he executed vengeance upon them. The other parable went on similar lines to the parable of the Talents, the differences being due either to a difference in the lesson Jesus intended to teach, or to variations of the story that grew up as it was told and retold in the Christian Church. It is, however, important in this connexion to ob- serve that the whole parable is dominated by the idea that it is of a prince that the story speaks. In other words, the situation from which the story of the nobleman starts out is reflected in the details of the story of the servants, some of which, indeed, become intelligible only in the light of it. It is probable that the parable rests on a historical incident, and the view of most interpreters is that it is the journey of Archelaus to Rome to secure his kingdom and the embassy of the Jews to thwart him to which Jesus here alludes. The internal harmony of the story speaks strongly for its unity. In this case the nobleman calls his ten servants and gives each of them a pound. It would, of course, be possible to suppose that, while nobly born, he is in indigent circumstances, and has little money to spare ; but this is pro- bably not the real reason why the sum entrusted is so small. In tlie parable of the Talents we have apparently to do with a merchant whose object IS to make money. He therefore entrusts his servants with a large capital in order that they may have ample opportunity for gaining large sums of money. Moreover, he has already tested their capacity in precisely this kind oi work. That accounts for the difference in distribution, and for the absence of any command that they should
696
TALENTS
TALENTS
trade witli the money. They know their master and his objects too well to doubt what he mea.ns them to do. But naturally a nobleman is not a merchant, hence his servants are quite unpractised in commercial enterprise. If, however, he is to receive a kingdom, it will be necessary for him to have men who are skilled in financial administra- tion. He therefore employs the interval of his absence in testing the business capacity of his slaves, in order that he may know whom to appoint to the various offices of State when he comes into his kingdom. Accordingly he assigns to each an equal sum of money, that all may have equal advantages and be differentiated according to their zeal and capacity. And inasmuch as his object is not to make money, for he will have ample opportunities of doing that when he receives his kingdom, he does not entrust them with a large but with a slender capital. Fidelity and ability can be tested by the use of slender as well as of large resources. When the servants come back, three of them are specially singled out for men- tion. There is no need to suppose that this is an incongruity in the parable. Ten slaves are, it is true, selected, because there are several offices in the State to be filled, whereas in the case of the merchant only three are chosen, because the capital is more profitably distributed into few than into many hands if the purpose is to make money. It would have been tedious, however, to mention each slave individually in the parable of the Pounds, hence three only are introduced as specimens of the rest. Besides, the parable is subordinated to the aim of teaching its lesson, and attention would have been distracted by the multiplicity of detail, even if ten different lessons could have been drawn from the different conduct of the ten slaves. The vital thing was to bring out the main lessons, and not confuse the broad issues by minute differentia- tions. The first slave tells the prince that his pound had won ten pounds. His zeal and enter-