“The mystery” (Aramaic rāzāʾ, the emphatic or determined form of rāz) denotes the hidden matter known to the king’s God but inaccessible to ordinary human means. It includes more than the forgotten dream as a bare datum. Nebuchadnezzar has demanded both the disclosure of what he dreamed and its meaning, and Daniel designates the whole concealed reality, dream and interpretation together, as “the mystery.” The term can denote a secret or confidential matter in its broader ancient Near Eastern setting, but its meaning here is defined by the immediate contrast between the incapacity of Babylon’s specialists in v. 27 and the God in heaven who “reveals mysteries” in v. 28. Daniel’s wording therefore prepares for a doctrine of revelation rather than claiming superior occult skill. The plural professional titles, “wise men, enchanters, magicians, and diviners,” represent the full range of Babylonian resources for gaining hidden knowledge; the plural participle yākĕlîn, “are able,” is negated without qualification. Their failure is not accidental or merely a limitation of technique. The king’s request lies beyond the proper reach of human wisdom. The repeated use of rāzāʾ through the chapter, especially in vv. 18-19, 28-30, and 47, establishes that what is concealed becomes known only because God makes it known. Thus Daniel’s later interpretation of the dream is presented as divine disclosure, not as an achievement of Daniel’s own wisdom or a successful use of the arts associated with the Babylonian court.

The phrase וכעמדו (ûkeʿomdô), literally “and as/when he stands,” marks the point at which the mighty king’s power has become established, and it emphasizes the startling nearness of his kingdom’s collapse to its own emergence. The expression consists of the preposition כ with the Qal infinitive construct of עמד (ʿāmad, “stand”) and a third masculine singular suffix referring back to the “mighty king” of v. 3. In this context, “standing” is royal and political: he has arisen and secured the dominion described in the preceding verse. It need not denote the precise instant of accession, nor does the phrase itself say that his death causes the division. The subject of the following Niphal verbs is feminine singular מלכותו (malkûtô, “his kingdom”): “his kingdom shall be broken” and “shall be divided.” The prophecy therefore directs attention from the ruler to the inherently fragile character of his imperial achievement. The kingdom is shattered at the point of its apparent consolidation and dispersed “toward the four winds of heaven,” an idiom for comprehensive geographical division. Daniel 8:8 supplies the canonical interpretation of this imagery: after the great horn is broken, four conspicuous horns arise toward the four winds. Daniel 11:4 accordingly summarizes the dissolution of the Greek empire after Alexander’s brief supremacy, while stressing that the resulting realms did not preserve either his dynastic succession or the same scope of dominion.

The repeated verb indicates the formal completion of the court-sponsored training and the youths’ presentation for royal assessment. Both forms derive from בוא (boʾ, “to come, enter”) in the Hiphil, the causative stem: להביאם (lahăbîʾām), an infinitive construct with suffix, expresses the king’s stated purpose, “to cause them to come in” or “to bring them in”; ויביאם (wayyĕbîʾēm), a wayyiqtol, records the chief eunuch’s execution of that command. The verbal repetition tightly joins Nebuchadnezzar’s original directive in v. 5 to Ashpenaz’s final administrative act. “Before Nebuchadnezzar” (lipnê Nebukadneṣṣar) signifies appearance in the royal presence and anticipates the king’s direct interview in v. 19. The expression need not specify the particular room or ceremonial procedures of the Babylonian court, but it clearly marks a public and official audience before the sovereign. The chief of the eunuchs does not independently appoint the young men to service; he presents those under his charge for the king’s own examination and decision. Verses 19-20 then show the result of this presentation: the king speaks with them, finds Daniel and his three companions without equal, and stations them in his service.

The clause "he again touched me" resumes the ministry of the humanlike heavenly figure introduced in v. 16, rather than clearly introducing a new participant. The subject of the verbs is unexpressed, a normal feature of Hebrew narrative when the antecedent remains active in the discourse. The nearest suitable antecedent is "one in the likeness of the sons of man" in v. 16, whose touch upon Daniel's lips enabled him to speak. In v. 18 the same kind of figure, described with the closely related expression "like the appearance of a man" (kemarʾeh ʾadam), touches Daniel in order to strengthen him. The expression wayyosep wayyiggaʿ, literally, "he added and touched," employs the Hiphil of yasap, "to add," with a following finite verb to express repetition: he touched Daniel once more. It does not require an extended interval between the touches, nor does it by itself establish a second angelic person. The narrative presents a sequence suited to Daniel's incapacity: he is overwhelmed by the vision, then enabled to speak through a touch to his lips, and finally physically and inwardly strengthened through another touch. The Piel wayeḥazzeqeni, "and he strengthened me," denotes effective impartation of strength, preparing Daniel to hear the ensuing revelation. The humanlike appearance functions within the account as a form of merciful mediation, since Daniel's frailty cannot endure the unmediated splendor described in vv. 5-9.

The vision presents the removal of the three horns as inseparable from the little horn’s emergence and ascendancy, though Daniel 7:8 itself does not specify the precise political means by which they are removed. The three are called “former” or “earlier” horns (qadmāyātāʾ), marking them as horns already present before the arrival of the “other” horn (ʾaḥorî), rather than identifying them as three successive world empires. The passive form ʾetʿaqarāh, “were uprooted,” from ʿăqar, depicts their forcible removal; the image is stronger than ordinary succession, since uprooting conveys dispossession and elimination from an established place. The phrase min qodāmāh, “from before it,” may denote removal from the little horn’s presence or position, and does not by itself prove that the horn directly performed every act of deposition. Yet the angelic interpretation supplies the intended relation: the coming ruler “shall put down three kings” (Dan. 7:24). Thus the vision regards the three displaced horns as three kings, or ruling powers represented by kings, within the fourth kingdom, whose overthrow is attributable to the little horn’s rise. The correspondence between horn and king should not flatten the symbolism into a bare list of individuals, for the horns belong to the beastly kingdom and share its corporate political character. Nevertheless, the number three is part of the disclosed pattern of this ruler’s consolidation of power, not a general symbol for undefined opposition.

The plural pronoun in “you drank wine in them” refers to the vessels taken from the Jerusalem temple, not to Belshazzar’s wives and concubines or to the idols. The phrase follows the presentation of “the vessels of his house” (mānayyāʾ dî-bêtēh), and the masculine plural suffix in bĕhôn, “in them,” agrees naturally with mānayyāʾ, a masculine plural noun. The women named in the intervening phrase, “your consorts and your concubines,” are feminine nouns and cannot be the grammatical antecedent of the masculine plural suffix. The participle šātayin, a Qal masculine plural active participle of šetah, depicts the assembled male participants, headed by Belshazzar and his nobles, as drinking wine by means of, or from, these vessels. Aramaic bĕ can denote instrument or location, so a translation such as “drank wine from them” expresses the sense more idiomatically than a strictly literal “drank wine in them.” Daniel 5:2-3 has already identified these as the gold and silver vessels Nebuchadnezzar removed from the temple in Jerusalem. Their use at the royal revelry was therefore a conscious profanation of objects consecrated to the God of Israel, and it supplied the setting in which praise was directed to lifeless gods of precious metals and other materials. The syntax thus joins sacrilege against the temple vessels with idolatrous praise, before setting both acts against Belshazzar’s failure to honor the God who holds his life-breath and paths in his hand.

Daniel’s statement is a corporate and retrospective confession, not a denial that he is presently seeking God. The perfect חִלִּינוּ (ḥillînû, “we have entreated” or “sought favor”) is negated to characterize Israel’s settled response to the covenant judgments: despite the calamities prescribed in the Torah of Moses, the people as a whole had not turned to God in penitential supplication. Daniel’s prayer in vv. 3-19 therefore stands as the very response whose previous absence he confesses. The close correspondence between v. 3, where Daniel sets his face to seek the Lord through prayer and pleas for mercy, and v. 13, where Israel has not sought the face of the LORD, makes the contrast deliberate. The idiom חִלָּה אֶת־פְּנֵי (ḥillâ ʾet-pĕnê), literally “to entreat the face,” denotes seeking the favorable presence and mercy of a superior. Its failure is defined by the following infinitives: “to turn from our iniquity and to gain insight into your truth.” Israel’s lack of supplication was exposed not by an absence of religious words alone, but by the absence of the repentance that true entreaty entails. Daniel nevertheless uses the first-person plural throughout the confession, identifying himself with the covenant people and their fathers, kings, princes, and inhabitants of the land (vv. 5-6). This is neither a rhetorical fiction nor an assertion that every Israelite had been individually prayerless; it is covenantal solidarity before the God whose righteous judgments have fallen upon the nation.

The description identifies these men as Daniel’s hostile and deceitful denouncers, rather than merely as officials who had brought a legitimate legal case. The clause literally reads, “these men who ate his pieces,” using אֲכַלוּ (ʾăkalû), a Qal perfect third masculine plural of ʾakal, “to eat,” with קַרְצֹוהִי (qarṣôhî), “his pieces” or “his portions.” In Danielic Aramaic this is an established idiom for malicious accusation or slander, also used of those who brought charges against the Jews in Daniel 3:8. English versions properly render the sense rather than the literal imagery: “accused,” “maliciously accused,” or “informed against.” The idiom itself conveys adversarial hostility, though it does not by itself define every legal detail of the charge. The surrounding narrative supplies that assessment. Daniel’s rivals first find no corruption or negligence in his administration (6:4), then deliberately devise a decree that exploits his known fidelity to God (6:5-9). Their report to Darius is therefore an act of calculated denunciation, framed to secure Daniel’s death. By calling them the men who “ate Daniel’s pieces,” the narrator distinguishes the actual plotters from the broader imperial administration and marks their accusation as predatory intrigue rather than the impartial enforcement of royal law.

The clause means that the Babylonian wise men were summoned so that they might make the interpretation known to Nebuchadnezzar personally, not to a plural body including the king. The final verb, יְהוֹדְעֻנַּנִי (yehôdeʿunnānî), is a Hiphil imperfect third masculine plural of ידע (yĕdaʿ, “to know”), with a first-person singular pronominal suffix: “that they might cause me to know” or “make known to me.” The plural belongs to the wise men as the prospective interpreters, while the object is the singular king who narrates the account in the first person. Accordingly, “to us” is an interpretive expansion rather than the most exact rendering of the Aramaic. A royal plural is possible in some ancient royal contexts, but it is not expressed by the morphology here and is unnecessary in this narrative. Nebuchadnezzar’s concern throughout 4:1-18 is the meaning of his own dream, and the subsequent account confirms that the other wise men could not disclose its interpretation to him (4:4 [English 4:7]), whereas Daniel could. The wording also recalls the failed court consultation in Daniel 2, but with an important difference: in Daniel 4 the king relates the dream to the wise men; their inability concerns its פְּשַׁר (pešar, “interpretation”), not the dream’s content.

The expression אִישׁ־חֲמֻדוֹת (ʾîš-ḥămûdôt) identifies Daniel as a man highly prized or greatly beloved, rather than as a man possessing desirable treasure. The construct noun אִישׁ (“man of”) is followed by חֲמֻדוֹת, the plural of חֶמְדָּה (ḥemdâ), “desire, delight, precious thing.” In this idiom the plural intensifies the quality: Daniel is characterized by preciousness or desirability. English renderings such as “greatly beloved,” “greatly esteemed,” and “man highly treasured” convey the sense more accurately than “man of desirable treasure,” which may suggest that Daniel owns valued possessions. The designation is repeated at Daniel 9:23 and 10:19, and its recurrence frames the final vision as a disclosure granted to one favored in the heavenly court. Daniel 9:23 states directly, “you are greatly beloved” (חֲמֻדוֹת אַתָּה), in connection with the divine response to his prayer. Although the speaker in 10:11 is the heavenly messenger, the favor expressed is not chiefly a private affection of the angel; the messenger has been sent under God’s authority, and the title signals Daniel’s preciousness before God. It therefore explains the gracious character of the angelic visitation while preserving Daniel’s humbled condition: the recipient of divine favor still trembles before the unveiled reality of the heavenly message.

The queen’s expression reflects Babylonian religious speech rather than a confession that Daniel’s wisdom derived from pagan deities. The Aramaic phrase rûaḥ ʾĕlāhîn qaddišîn, “a spirit of holy gods,” employs the plural noun ʾĕlāhîn (“gods”) and the masculine plural adjective qaddišîn (“holy”). Its grammar therefore most naturally denotes a plurality of divine beings as conceived within the speaker’s polytheistic setting. The queen recognizes an extraordinary, divine quality in Daniel, but she does so with the categories available to a member of the Babylonian court. The same wording occurs in Nebuchadnezzar’s statements about Daniel in Daniel 4:8, 9, 18, and Belshazzar repeats it in 5:14. These repetitions link the present crisis to Nebuchadnezzar’s earlier encounters with Daniel and underscore the irony of Belshazzar’s neglect of what his predecessor had learned. Within the book’s own theological interpretation, Daniel’s insight comes from the God of heaven, who reveals mysteries (2:18-23, 28) and rules over human kingdoms (4:17, 25, 32; 5:21). The queen’s plural terminology must consequently be distinguished from the narrator’s and Daniel’s own monotheistic testimony. Some have proposed that ʾĕlāhîn may function here as a plural designation for the true God. Although Aramaic can use plural forms for Israel’s God in certain contexts, the plural adjective qaddišîn and the explicitly Babylonian voice of the speaker weigh against that reading in this verse. Her words are substantially correct in recognizing that Daniel possesses divinely given illumination (nahîrû), insight (śokletānû), and wisdom (ḥokmâ); her explanation of their source remains religiously inadequate. The narrative allows the queen’s courtly testimony to point toward the true God without adopting its polytheistic formulation as its own.

Daniel 8:1 deliberately resumes Hebrew, marking a new major division in the book and correlating with the vision's particular concern for the covenant people, Jerusalem, and the sanctuary. The preceding Aramaic section extends from Daniel 2:4b through 7:28, whereas Daniel 8:1 begins, "In the third year" (bišnat), in Hebrew and continues in that language through the end of the book. The temporal superscription links the chapter to Daniel's earlier visions during Belshazzar's reign, but the language shift also distinguishes chapters 8–12 as revelations that trace the affliction and preservation of the holy people within the course of imperial history. The distinction should not be pressed into an absolute division between material for Gentiles in Aramaic and material for Jews in Hebrew. Daniel 2–7 contains profound instruction for Israel, and Daniel 8–12 concerns pagan kingdoms as well as Jerusalem. Aramaic was an international administrative language, while Hebrew was the language of Israel's Scriptures and covenantal self-understanding. Thus the resumption of Hebrew appropriately accompanies the intensified attention in chapters 8–12 to the land, the regular offering, the sanctuary, and the persecution of the faithful. The shift serves the book's theological design: the dominion of the nations is treated in relation to the God of heaven, while the later visions focus more closely on how that dominion bears upon God's people and the promised restoration of his holy order.

The purple garment and gold necklace are insignia of publicly conferred royal favor and rank, rather than a private monetary reward. The king promises that the successful reader will "wear purple" (אַרְגְּוָנָא, ʾargĕwānāʾ) and have "the necklace of gold" (הַמְנִיכָא דִי־דַהֲבָא, hamnîkāʾ dî-dahăbāʾ) placed upon his neck. The imperfect יִלְבַּשׁ (yilbaš), "he will wear," portrays an official bestowal of courtly dress. Purple dye was costly and therefore associated with royal and aristocratic distinction; the gold neck-chain similarly functions as a visible emblem of honor bestowed by the sovereign. The combination has a close biblical analogue in Pharaoh’s elevation of Joseph: Joseph is clothed in fine garments, given a gold chain around his neck, and publicly advanced to authority (Gen. 41:42). Daniel 5:29 later records the actual execution of Belshazzar’s promise to Daniel, including the purple clothing, gold necklace, and proclamation of governmental rank. The items therefore belong to a formal act of investiture. They do not make Daniel a member of the royal family or transfer the throne to him; they identify him before the court as one who bears delegated authority under the king. The narrative sets this lavish royal display within a scene of profound impotence. Belshazzar can offer the highest honors available within his administration, but neither his wealth nor his patronage can produce the interpretation of God’s writing. The courtly symbols that distinguish Daniel also anticipate the contrast between Babylon’s failing wise men and the servant to whom God grants wisdom and the disclosure of mysteries.

The phrase "he came in peace" describes the ruler's deceptive and unobtrusive manner of obtaining royal power, rather than a morally peaceful or legitimate accession. The prepositional phrase בְּשַׁלְוָה (bĕšalwâ), "in tranquility, security," can denote conditions of apparent calm and freedom from alarm. In this context it stands in deliberate contrast to the violent royal conflicts described elsewhere in the chapter. The king enters a situation in which opposition is quieted or unsuspecting, so that he can secure the monarchy without the public military conquest that might have accompanied an open seizure of the throne. The following clause explains the means of this apparently peaceful arrival: "he secured the kingdom by flatteries." The Hiphil of חזק (ḥāzaq), הֶחֱזִיק (heḥĕzîq), has the sense of making firm, gaining control of, or establishing a hold upon the kingdom. Its instrumental complement, בַּחֲלַקְלַקּוֹת (baḥălaqlaqqôt), literally "by smooth things," refers to smooth, persuasive, and deceitful speech or maneuvering. The plural likely includes the various promises, inducements, and political assurances by which support was purchased and rivals were neutralized. The expression therefore does not portray diplomatic skill neutrally; in Daniel it belongs to the moral characterization of a ruler who gains authority through deception. Within the historical horizon of the chapter, the description fittingly corresponds to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who did not receive the kingdom through an uncontested dynastic grant but established himself amid the disputed Seleucid succession following Seleucus IV. Daniel's concern, however, is not to provide a full court chronicle. The verse interprets the accession as the rise of a contemptible usurper whose lack of recognized royal glory is compensated for by calculated intrigue. The apparent peace of his coming is thus the political calm produced and exploited by his "smooth things," not evidence that his rule was peaceable in character.

The preposition בְּ (bĕ-) in Daniel 3:21 describes the condition or attire in which the men were bound, not the material by which they were tied. The passive perfect כְּפִתוּ (kĕphîtû, “they were bound”) governs the three Judeans, while the successive prepositional phrases identify the garments they continued to wear. Thus the sense is that they were bound while clothed in their full official or ordinary dress and then cast into the furnace. The preceding command in v. 20 distinguishes the act of binding from the clothing: Nebuchadnezzar orders that the men be bound and thrown into the furnace, and v. 21 reports the command's execution in detail. The narrative later makes clear that their bonds, rather than their clothing, were destroyed, for the king sees four men walking freely in the fire (v. 25), and the officials find that neither their bodies nor their garments bear the effect of the fire (v. 27). Their being cast in fully clothed therefore heightens the completeness of the preservation: the fire consumes the instruments of restraint without consuming either the men or what they wore.

The verse distinguishes the binding prohibition from the written instrument by which it receives official and irrevocable status. The noun אֱסָרָא (ʾĕsārâ) denotes a prohibitory injunction, the substantive restriction that the conspirators seek to impose. כְּתָבָא (kĕtābâ), "writing" or "document," denotes its formal written promulgation. The requested royal action is therefore twofold: the king is to establish the injunction and to authenticate the document. The writing is not a separate law alongside the injunction, but the authoritative legal form in which the injunction is fixed. The relative clause דִּי לָא לְהַשְׁנָיָה (dî lāʾ lĕhaššĕnāyâ), "which is not to be changed," grammatically follows "document," yet it concerns the legal enactment embodied in that document rather than the physical object. The infinitive of שְׁנָה (šĕnâ), in the causative stem, expresses alteration or revocation. The concluding phrase, "according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which does not pass away," makes the point explicit. דָּת (dāt), "law," is feminine, and the feminine verb תֶעְדֵּא (teʿdēʾ), "passes away," refers to that law: once promulgated under this claimed legal principle, it cannot be annulled. The narrative employs this supposed immutability to heighten the conflict. Darius's administrative and legal authority renders him capable of establishing the prohibition, yet the very formality intended to secure its permanence later entraps him. The irrevocable human statute thus stands in deliberate tension with the sovereignty of Israel's God, whose deliverance of Daniel is not frustrated by the fixed decree, even though the king himself cannot simply cancel it.

The expression כְּבַר־שְׁנִין שִׁתִּין וְתַרְתֵּין (kĕbar-šenîn šittîn wetartên) is an Aramaic age formula, literally, “as a son of sixty-two years.” The noun בַּר (bar, “son”) in construct with “years” denotes a person characterized by a stated number of years, much as the Hebrew idiom “a son of years” expresses age. Thus the clause identifies Darius as an elderly man at the time he received the kingdom. The prefixed כְּ (kĕ, “as, like”) belongs to the established idiom and need not make the number inherently imprecise. English versions that render “about sixty-two years old” properly communicate the conventional, nontechnical character of ancient age statements, whereas versions that state simply “sixty-two years old” preserve the specified numeral. The verse gives no basis for calculating Darius’s birth year with modern precision, yet it presents sixty-two as the author’s meaningful age designation. Its principal narrative function is to locate Darius as a mature ruler at Babylon’s fall and subsequent transfer of imperial authority, rather than to supply a complete chronological identification of him.

The expression “understanding riddles” (ûmēbîn ḥîdôt) characterizes the king as exceptionally shrewd in matters that are obscure, concealed, and difficult to penetrate. The participle mēbîn is Hiphil, denoting one who has discernment or insight, while ḥîdôt ordinarily refers to riddles, enigmatic sayings, or problems requiring unusual discernment. The wording therefore does not portray the king as a recipient of divine mystery in the manner of Daniel, but as a ruler capable of grasping hidden matters and employing subtle calculations. The immediate context directs this intelligence toward political and religious evil. This king is “fierce of face” (ʿaz pānîm), and Daniel 8:25 explains that “through his cunning he shall make deceit prosper by his hand.” His understanding of riddles is thus closely related to craft, deception, and the ability to exploit complicated circumstances. The literal rendering “riddles” preserves the Hebrew image, though translations such as “intrigues” or “dark schemes” appropriately bring out its contextual force. The phrase also forms an implicit contrast with Daniel’s God-given ability to disclose enigmas. In Daniel 5:12, Daniel is credited with the capacity to explain “riddles,” yet his wisdom derives from the Spirit of God and serves the revelation of truth. The fierce king possesses a different kind of discernment: natural and political acumen turned toward arrogant opposition to God and oppression of his people. In its historical reference this suits Antiochus IV, whose rise and policies involved calculated manipulation; within the wider pattern of Daniel, such hostile cunning also marks the antichrist-like enemies of God’s kingdom.

The wheels identify the throne as a mobile heavenly throne-chariot, an image closely related to Ezekiel’s vision of the divine glory. The Aramaic גַּלְגִּלּוֹהִי (galgĕlôhî), “his wheels,” is a masculine plural noun with a third masculine singular suffix, specifying that the wheels belong to the throne of the Ancient of Days. Their description as נוּר דָּלִק (nûr dāliq), “burning fire,” intensifies the preceding statement that the throne itself consists of “flames of fire.” The scene therefore depicts no inert royal seat, but the active and terrible manifestation of the heavenly Judge. Ezekiel 1:15-21 and 10:2, 6, 9-17 provide the principal biblical background, where wheels accompany the throne-chariot of the glory of the God of Israel and move according to the Spirit. Daniel does not reproduce Ezekiel’s living creatures or his extended chariot description, since his immediate concern is the convening of the heavenly court for judgment upon the beast. Nevertheless, the fiery wheels preserve the same conviction that Israel’s God is not territorially confined or subject to earthly powers. His enthronement before the beast is judicial, as the following verses make explicit through the stream of fire, the opened books, and the removal of the beast’s dominion. Fire in this setting signifies the holiness and consuming judgment of God, rather than a literal mechanical detail about the construction of the throne.

Darius's fasting is best understood as an extraordinary expression of personal distress and hopeful dependence concerning Daniel's fate, without establishing that the king had yet made a settled confession of faith in Israel's God. The preceding narrative supplies the immediate reason: although Darius had attempted to rescue Daniel until sunset, his irrevocable decree had placed Daniel in the lions' den (6:14-16). His words at the sealing of the den express a genuine, though still developing, confidence that Daniel's God might deliver him: “May your God, whom you serve continually, deliver you” (6:16). The king's refusal of food through the night therefore coheres with grief, repentance over his own judicial failure, and anxious entreaty for the outcome he had commended to Daniel's God. The Aramaic phrase בָת טְוָת (bāt ṭĕwāt) literally states that the king “lodged fasting”; ṭĕwāt functions adverbially, specifying the manner in which he passed the night. Fasting in the Old Testament commonly accompanies mourning, urgent petition, and humiliation before God, but the text does not explicitly report Darius praying. That restraint is significant. The narrator depicts a pagan monarch deeply shaken by the righteousness of Daniel and the power of Daniel's God, while reserving Darius's fuller acknowledgment for his decree after Daniel's deliverance (6:26-27 [Aramaic 6:27-28]). His fasting thus signals more than conventional courtly sorrow, yet it should not be pressed into evidence of a completed conversion before the miracle has occurred.