The principal arguments in favour of later date derived from internal evidence, arise from (_first_) the state of violence and misery depicted in the book with so much bitterness, and which, it is alleged, cannot be made to harmonize with what we know of the reign of Solomon; and (_secondly_) the strongly Aramaic character of the language, which assimilates itself to that of the books of Daniel and Esther. With regard to the first point (if we have at all found the real interpretation of the book), it seems improbable that any special description of a particular period could have been ever intended, or even any allusion to the special circumstances of any people. So far also from supposing a time of trouble in the mind of the writer, on the contrary the point and moral of the book will be enhanced if we suppose it to be written rather in a time of prosperity than of adversity or oppression. Thus, if we turn to the expressions of chapter iv. 1 we shall see that to give any special reference to them, and suppose them peculiar or out of the way, would weaken the force of Koheleth’s argument. Human life generally, under the very best of external circumstances, always exhibits the spectacle both of oppressions by the wicked, and of oppressed without comforters. Now underneath this statement lies the difficulty that He who permits this is the merciful Author of Nature Himself, and it is this difficulty which is especially discussed. There is no necessity to suppose the concluding years of Persian tyranny to be pointedly alluded to, because it is not under an Asiatic despotism alone that hypocrites come and go from the place of the holy (chapter viii. 10), or servants are seen on horseback, and nobles, like serfs, walking afoot (chapter x. 7), or that men continue in prosperous wickedness (chapter ix. 3). Indeed, the same may be said of any other of the similar providential difficulties advanced in this book, for the very same occurrences may be witnessed now in this age of civilisation and progress. The reply then to the assertion that it is ‘impossible to reconcile this state of things with the age of Solomon’ is simply this. There is no need even to make the attempt, because there is no reason to believe that, considering the author’s standpoint, he intended that the instances of human suffering and disappointment he cites should be taken otherwise than perfectly generally. What he adduces of this nature is in sufficient measure true always, at the best of times. It would blunt the point of his reasoning if it could be shown that the difficulties he starts were exceptional or temporary; but this is not so. Koheleth’s repeated declaration is that _all_――that is, the whole of human life――is vanity or evanescence.