Aristobulus. We lost our liberty and became subject to the Romans; we
were forced to give back to the Syrians the territory which we had taken
from them by our arms. Moreover, within a short period the Romans
exacted from us over ten thousand talents. The kingship, formerly a
privilege bestowed on those who were high priests by right of birth, now
passed into plebeian hands;[90] of this we shall speak in due course.
Pompey then handed over Cœle-Syria with the rest of Syria,[91] from the
river Euphrates to Egypt, to Scaurus, leaving him two Roman legions, and
departed for Cilicia _en route_ for Rome. He took with him Aristobulus
as a prisoner with his children.—_Ant._ XIV. 4. 4 f. (71-79).
Footnote 86:
Or “lampstand.”
Footnote 87:
Another reading has “silver vessels.”
Footnote 88:
Or “prætor.”
Footnote 89:
By the Jews (_B. J._ parallel passage).
Footnote 90:
The Herodian family (Idumæans).
Footnote 91:
Text (as read by Niese) doubtful.
(9) Division of the Country into Five Districts by Gabinius
Gabinius completes Pompey’s work in the settlement of the province
of Syria.
[Sidenote: _c._ 57 B.C.]
After this Gabinius reinstated Hyrcanus in Jerusalem and committed to
him the custody of the Temple. The civil administration he reconstituted
under the form of an aristocracy. He divided the whole nation into five
unions;[92] one of these he attached to Jerusalem, another to Gadara,
the third had Amathus as its centre of government, the fourth was
allotted to Jericho, the fifth to Sepphoris, a city of Galilee. The Jews
welcomed their release from the rule of an individual and were from that
time forward governed by an aristocracy.—_B. J._ I. 8. 5 (169 f.).
Footnote 92:
Or “sessions,” “conventions” (σύνοδοι). “He appointed five councils
(or ‘assemblies’, συνέδρια) and distributed the nation into as many
portions.”—_Ant._ (parallel passage).
(10) Settlement under Julius Cæsar
[Sidenote: 47 B.C.]
In due course Cæsar concluded the war[93] and set sail for Syria. There
he confirmed the appointment of Hyrcanus to the high priesthood, while
he bestowed high honours on Antipater—the privilege of Roman citizenship
with exemption from taxation everywhere....
Cæsar then appointed Hyrcanus high priest and Antipater civil governor,
allowing him to select his own title. Antipater leaving the decision to
him, Cæsar made him viceroy[94] of Judæa. He further permitted Hyrcanus,
at his request, to rebuild the walls of the capital,[95] which had lain
in ruins since their demolition by Pompey. He sent instructions to the
consuls at Rome that a record of these decisions should be placed in the
Capitol.—_Ant._ XIV. 8. 3, 5 (137, 143 f.).
Footnote 93:
In Egypt, where Antipater had rendered him yeoman service.
Footnote 94:
Or “procurator” (ἐπίτροπος).
Footnote 95:
Lit. “fatherland.”
IV. HEROD THE GREAT
(11) The Youth Herod frees Galilee from the Brigands
[Sidenote: _c._ 47-6 B.C.]
Antipater, when he saw that Hyrcanus was of an inert and sluggish
disposition, put his eldest son Phasael in command of Jerusalem and the
surrounding district, and committed Galilee to his second son, Herod,
then a mere stripling; he was but fifteen[96] years old. Still his youth
was no hindrance to him, and, being a lad of high spirit, he at once met
with an opportunity for the display of his quality. Finding that one
Ezekias, the captain of a band of brigands, with a large horde, was
overrunning the adjoining parts of Syria, he caught him and put him to
death with many of his confederates. This achievement of his won him the
warmest affection of the Syrians; he had purged their country of this
nest of robbers of which they were longing to be rid. They would sing
his praises for this feat throughout their villages and cities,
acclaiming him as one who had brought them peace and the secure
enjoyment of their possessions. This action, moreover, brought him to
the notice of Sextus Cæsar, a kinsman of the great Cæsar and now
governor of Syria.—_Ant._ XIV. 9. 2 (158-160).
Footnote 96:
So the MSS; probably we should read “twenty-five.” See Schürer,
_Jewish People_, I. 1. 383, n. 29.
(12) Herod on his Trial before the Sanhedrin
[Sidenote: _c._ 47-6 B.C.]
But the principal Jews, when they saw Antipater and his sons growing so
great through the good-will of the nation and the revenues which they
derived from Judæa and from the wealth of Hyrcanus, became ill-disposed
to him. For Antipater had made an alliance with the Roman Emperors and
had induced Hyrcanus to send them money; he then appropriated this money
and despatched it as a gift from himself and not from Hyrcanus.
Hyrcanus, when the matter came to his ears, was indifferent. Not so the
Jewish leaders. The sight of Herod—violent, audacious and hankering
after autocratic power[97]—filled them with alarm. So they approached
Hyrcanus and now openly accused Antipater. “How much longer,” they said,
“will you remain unmoved by what is happening? Do you not see that
Antipater and his sons have girded themselves with the ruler’s power,
leaving you but the barren name of king? Mark these things and do not
expect to escape peril by carelessness for yourself and your kingdom.
Antipater and his sons are no longer stewards of your realm—do not
deceive yourself with that thought—but openly and confessedly despots.
One son, Herod, by killing Ezekias,[98] with many of his followers, has
transgressed our law, which forbids the slaying of any man, even a
malefactor, unless he has first been condemned to this penalty by the
Sanhedrin. Yet Herod took it upon him to do this without your
authority.”
This speech had its effect upon Hyrcanus. His indignation was further
roused by the mothers of Herod’s victims, who continued day by day in
the Temple to petition the king and the people to bring Herod to
judgement before the Sanhedrin for his actions. Thus instigated,
Hyrcanus summoned Herod to trial upon the charges laid against him. He
came. His father had advised him to meet his judges not as a private
individual but with a bodyguard to protect him, after securing his
position in Galilee in the manner that seemed most to his own advantage.
He set his affairs in order accordingly, and with an escort just
sufficient for his journey, so as neither to intimidate Hyrcanus by
appearing with a larger body, nor yet to be quite exposed and
unprotected, went to his trial.
However, Sextus, the governor of Syria, sent written instructions to
Hyrcanus to acquit Herod, adding threats in the event of his
disregarding them. This letter of Sextus gave Hyrcanus a handle for
delivering Herod unscathed from the Sanhedrin, for he[99] loved him as
his own son.
Herod, as he stood in the Sanhedrin with his body-guard round him,
overawed them all, and none of those who before his arrival had been
maligning him, now dared to accuse him. There was deep silence and
perplexity how to proceed.
In this critical situation one Sameas, a man whose upright character
made him superior to fear, rose up and said: “Fellow-councillors and
King, I know of none, nor, I suppose, can you name any, of those who in
times past have been summoned before you, who appeared in such guise as
this. Every one, of whatever rank, entering this council-chamber on his
trial, comes with an air of humility and the appearance of one in fear
and craving your mercy, with his hair long and in black raiment. But
this most worthy Herod, a defendant on trial for murder, when summoned
to answer so grave a charge, stands here in purple array, with
well-trimmed hair adorning his head, and with armed men around him,
ready, if we condemn him in accordance with the law, to kill us and to
save himself in defiance of justice. Yet it is not Herod I would blame
for such conduct, if he puts his own interests above the laws, but you
and the King for giving him so great licence. Be assured, however, I
call God Almighty to witness, that this man, whom, to gratify Hyrcanus,
you now desire to acquit, will one day punish both you and your King.”
And his words came true. For Herod, on inheriting his kingdom, slew all
those who were in the Sanhedrin, and Hyrcanus with them, Sameas alone
excepted. For he had a high regard for Sameas on account of his upright
character and because, when the city was afterwards [Sidenote: 37 B.C.]
besieged by Herod and Sossius, he advised the people to admit Herod,
telling them that for their sins they could not escape him.—_Ant._ XIV.
9. 3 f. (163-176).
Footnote 97:
Lit. “tyranny.”
Footnote 98:
See § (11).
Footnote 99:
Apparently Hyrcanus, though Sextus might be the subject.
(13) Herod and Cassius. Murder of Antipater, Herod’s Father
[Sidenote: 44 B.C.]
After the death of Julius Cæsar, when civil war was impending,
Cassius came to Syria and exacted heavy taxes, in the collection of
which he was assisted by Antipater and his sons. Malichus had
plotted against Antipater; Antipater had pardoned him, and had also
saved his life when he was in danger from the Romans.
[Sidenote: _c._ 43 B.C.]
In saving Malichus, however, Antipater, as the event proved, had saved
his own murderer. For Cassius and Murcus[100] collected an army and
entrusted the entire charge of it to Herod, appointing him to the
command of Cœle-Syria with a fleet and a force of horse and foot. They
promised, moreover, to make him King of Judæa after the war, which had
already broken out, against Antony and the young Cæsar.[101] Malichus
was then more in terror than ever of Antipater, and endeavoured to put
him out of the way.[102] So he bribed the butler of Hyrcanus, at whose
house the two were being entertained, and had him poisoned. With his
armed men he was able to keep the city quiet.
When Herod and Phasael heard of the plot against their father and were
indignant at it, Malichus, as on the former occasion, denied any part in
it, and professed that he had not been murdered. Such was the end of
Antipater, a man pre-eminent for his piety, justice and patriotism. Of
the two sons, Herod at once resolved to lead his army against Malichus
and avenge his father; Phasael, the elder, preferred to defeat him by
resort to craft, for fear they should seem guilty of provoking civil
war. So he accepted Malichus’ defence, feigning belief in his innocence
in the matter of Antipater’s death, and arranged a splendid funeral for
his father.—_Ant._ XIV. 11. 4 (280-284).
Footnote 100:
The governor of Syria.
Footnote 101:
Octavius, the future Emperor Augustus.
Footnote 102:
Cf. _B. J._ I. 226: “It was his son’s power and expectations which
brought about Antipater’s end. For Malichus was afraid of these,” etc.
(14) Antony makes Herod and Phasael Tetrarchs of Judæa
See the _Historical Atlas_ of Smith and Bartholomew, Map 41.
[Sidenote: 42 B.C.]
After the death of Cassius at Philippi, the victors departed, Cæsar
going to Italy, Antony to Asia. Embassies from the [Sidenote: _c._ 41
B.C.] various states waited upon Antony in Bithynia, and among them came
the Jewish leaders, who accused Phasael and Herod of usurping the
government and leaving to Hyrcanus merely titular honours. Herod
thereupon appeared and by large bribes so wrought upon Antony that he
refused his adversaries a hearing. So for the time being these enemies
were dispersed. But on a later occasion a hundred Jewish officials
approached Antony, now a slave to his passion for Cleopatra, at Daphne
beside Antioch, and, putting forward the most eminent and eloquent of
their number, laid accusations against the brothers. The defence was
undertaken by Messala, Hyrcanus supporting him because of his marriage
connexion with Herod. After hearing both parties, Antony enquired of
Hyrcanus who was the best qualified ruler. Hyrcanus pronouncing in
favour of Herod and his brother, Antony was delighted, because he had
formerly been their father’s guest, and had been hospitably entertained
by Antipater when he accompanied Gabinius on his Judæan campaign. So he
[Sidenote: 57-55 B.C.] made the brothers tetrarchs and entrusted them
with the administration of the whole of Judæa.—_Ant._ XIV. 12. 4 f.
(242-244).
(15) How Herod won his Kingdom
[Sidenote: 40 B.C.]
Herod, forced to flee from Palestine by a great invasion of
Parthians, who reinstate Antigonus, son of Aristobulus, as King of
Judæa, arrives a suppliant at Rome in mid-winter.
Antony commiserated the reversal of Herod’s fate. The trite reflection
arose in his mind that even those in the highest rank are at the mercy
of fortune. He was moved partly by the memory of Antipater’s
hospitality,[103] partly by Herod’s promise, as on a former occasion
when he was made tetrarch, to give him money if he were made king. But
his main incentive to assist Herod in his suit was animosity towards
Antigonus, whom he regarded as a promoter of sedition and an enemy of
the Roman people.
Cæsar[104] was even more ready to meet Herod’s claim and to further his
ends because of the part which Antipater had played in his father’s
campaigns in Egypt and his hospitality and undeviating loyalty; the
desire to gratify Antony, who was a warm admirer of Herod, was a further
motive.
The senate was accordingly summoned, and Messala, followed by Atratinus,
introduced Herod and rehearsed his father’s services and reminded the
assembly of the good-will which Herod himself had always borne to the
Roman people. At the same time they denounced Antigonus and proved him
to be an enemy, not merely from his former antagonism to them, but
because he had now been guilty of indignity to the Roman people in
accepting his rulership at Parthian hands. At this the senate was
exasperated. Antony also came forward and advised them that it was
expedient for the war with Parthia that Herod should be king. This met
with unanimous approval and a decree was passed accordingly.
The clearest evidence of Antony’s regard for Herod was afforded not
merely by his obtaining for him the kingdom for which he had not looked,
but by his procuring this unexpected honour so expeditiously that he was
enabled to leave Italy within the space of seven days. For Herod had not
come to the capital to ask the kingship for himself. He did not suppose
that the Romans, whose custom was to confer such a privilege on members
of the royal family, would grant it to him. He had come to ask for it
for his wife’s brother Alexander, the grandson on his father’s side of
Aristobulus, on his mother’s of Hyrcanus. How this youth was afterwards
put to death by Herod will be told in due course.
When the senate was dissolved, Antony and Cæsar left the senate-house to
offer sacrifice and to deposit a copy of the decree in the Capitol.
Herod was between them, and the consuls and other magistrates led the
way. Antony celebrated the king’s accession-day by a festival. Thus did
Herod obtain his kingdom in the 184th Olympiad, under the consulship of
Gnæus Domitius Calvinus (for the second time) and Gaius Asinius
Pollio.—_Ant._ XIV. 14. 4 f. (381-389).
Footnote 103:
Cf. § (14).
Footnote 104:
Octavius.
(16) How Herod made his peace with Augustus (after the Battle of Actium)
Herod was soon filled with anxiety about the security of his position.
He was Antony’s friend, and Antony had been defeated by [Sidenote: 31
B.C.] Cæsar[105] at Actium. His fears, however, proved worse than his
fate; for Cæsar considered his victory to be incomplete so long as Herod
remained Antony’s ally. [Sidenote: 30 B.C.] The king resolved to
confront the danger and set sail for Rhodes, where Cæsar was then
stationed. He presented himself before him without a diadem, a commoner
in dress and demeanour, but with the spirit of a king. His speech was
direct; he told the truth without reserve.
“I was made king by Antony,” he said, “and I acknowledge, Cæsar, that I
have in all things devoted my services to him. Nor will I shrink from
saying that, had not the Arabians detained me,[106] you would assuredly
have found me in arms at his side.[107] I sent him, however, such
auxiliary troops as I could and many thousand measures of corn;[108] nor
even after his defeat at Actium did I desert my benefactor. When no
longer useful as an ally, I became his best counsellor; I told him the
one remedy for his disasters—the death of Cleopatra. Would he but kill
her, I promised him money, walls to protect him, an army, and myself as
his brother in arms in the war against you. But his ears, it seems, were
stopped by his infatuation for Cleopatra and by God who has graciously
given you the victory. I share Antony’s defeat and with his downfall lay
down my diadem. I am come to you resting my hope of safety upon my
integrity, anticipating that the subject of enquiry will be not whose
friend, but how loyal a friend, I have been.”
To this Cæsar replied: “Nay, be assured of your safety, and reign
henceforth more securely than before. So staunch a champion of the
claims of friendship deserves to be ruler over many subjects. Endeavour
to remain as loyal to those who have been more fortunate, since I, too,
entertain the most brilliant hopes for your high spirit. Antony,
however, did well in obeying Cleopatra’s behests rather than yours; for
through his folly we have gained you. But you take the lead, it seems,
in acts of beneficence; for Quintus Didius[109] writes to me that you
have sent him a force to assist him against the gladiators. I therefore
now confirm your kingdom to you by decree; and hereafter I shall
endeavour to do you some further service, that you may not feel the loss
of Antony.”
Having thus graciously addressed the king, he placed the diadem on his
head, and signalized the grant by a decree, containing many generous
expressions in eulogy of the monarch.—_B.J._ I. 20. 1 ff. (386-393).
Footnote 105:
Octavius.
Footnote 106:
Herod was engaged in fighting the Arabians at the time of the battle
of Actium.
Footnote 107:
Reading ἀχώριστον with Havercamp; MSS εὐχάριστον, “grateful” (? =
“willingly”).
Footnote 108:
Lit. “many ten thousands of corn.”
Footnote 109:
Conjectural emendation (Hudson), cf. Dio Cassius, 51. 7, and the
parallel passage, _Ant._ XV. 195.
(17) Herod and Mariamne
But Fortune, in revenge for his successes in the field, visited Herod
with troubles at home; his ill-fated career originated with a woman to
whom he was passionately attached....
On the eve of his departure abroad he committed his wife[110] to the
care of Joseph, his sister Salome’s husband, with private injunctions to
kill her, should Antony kill him. He could trust Joseph; the ties which
united them made him a true friend. Joseph, out of no malice but from a
desire to convince her of the love which the king bore her, since even
in death he could not endure to be separated from her, betrayed the
secret. When Herod, on his return, [Sidenote: _c._ 29 B.C.] in familiar
intercourse was protesting with many oaths his affection for her and
that he had never (so) loved any other woman, “A fine exhibition you
gave,” she replied, “of your love for me[111] by your orders to Joseph
to put me to death!”
He was beside himself, the moment he heard the secret was out. Joseph,
he exclaimed, would never have disclosed his orders, had he not seduced
her; and, frenzied with passion, he leapt from the bed and paced the
palace to and fro in his distraction. His sister Salome, seizing this
opportunity to slander Mariamne, confirmed his suspicion of Joseph. Mad
with ungovernable jealousy, he ordered that both should instantly be put
to death. But remorse followed hard upon rage; his wrath subsided, his
love revived. So consuming, indeed, was the flame of his passionate
desire that he believed she was not dead and in his affliction would
address her as though she were alive; until time taught him the reality
of his loss, when his grief was as profound as the love he had for her
while she was alive.—_B.J._ I. 22 (431, 441-444).
Footnote 110:
Mariamne (Μαριάμμη).
Footnote 111:
Lit. “for us.”
(18) Extension of Herod’s Realm. His Popularity with Augustus and
Agrippa
For Palestine under Herod see the _Hist. Atlas_ of Smith and
Bartholomew, Map 42.
[Sidenote: 27 B.C.]
When Herod was engaged on these enterprises[112] and had already
completed the rebuilding of the city of [Sidenote: 23 B.C.]
Sebaste,[113] he resolved to send his sons, Alexander and Aristobulus,
to Rome, to have audience of Cæsar.[114] On their arrival at the capital
they were given lodging in the house of Pollio, one who was very
assiduous in cultivating Herod’s friendship; permission was also given
them to lodge in the palace of the Emperor, who gave the lads the most
kindly reception. The Emperor, moreover, empowered Herod to bequeath his
kingdom to any of his children at his discretion; and added to his realm
the district of Trachonitis,[115] Batanæa and Auranitis, which he gave
him for the following reason....
Here follows a description of Herod’s subjugation of Zenodorus and
the robber bands in Trachonitis.
So Cæsar bestowed upon Herod the territory of Zenodorus, an extensive
region lying between Trachonitis and Galilee (and embracing) Ulatha and
Paneas[116] and the neighbouring country. He attached it[117] to the
province of Syria, but instructed the provincial governors to do nothing
without obtaining Herod’s approval.
In short, he reached such a height of prosperity that, whereas the
burden of government of the vast Roman Empire rested upon two men, first
Cæsar, and then (as Cæsar’s favourite) Agrippa, Cæsar preferred no one
to Herod after Agrippa, and Agrippa made Herod his chief friend after
Cæsar.—_Ant._ XV. 10. 1 and 3 (342 f.; 360 f.).
Footnote 112:
The building of Cæsarea and its harbour, etc.
Footnote 113:
Herod’s new name for Samaria.
Footnote 114:
Augustus.
Footnote 115:
Lit. “Trachon.” The three districts correspond approximately to Bashan
of the O.T.
Footnote 116:
Ulatha and Paneas N. and N.E. of the Waters of Merom.
Footnote 117:
Text (Niese) uncertain. Most MSS “him”; lit. “mixed him with (? = ‘put
him on a level with’) the governors of Syria.”
(19) The Historian’s Reading of Herod’s Character
It is usual to remark with astonishment on the inconsistency of Herod’s
character. When we have regard to his munificent actions and the
benefits which he conferred on the world at large, even one who is not
among his warm admirers[118] cannot deny that he was by nature supremely
beneficent. If, on the other hand, one looks at the penalties inflicted
and the wrongs done by him to his subjects and nearest relations, and
takes note of his harsh and unrelenting disposition, one will be forced
to the conclusion that he was of a brutal nature and an alien to all
humanity.[119] Hence the common opinion that his character was, as it
were, a compound of conflicting and antagonistic elements.
I do not share this opinion; my view is that both these sides of his
character had one and the same cause. He was ambitious, indeed an abject
slave to that passion; and where there appeared any promise of
posthumous fame or present reputation, he might even attain magnanimity.
But, since his expenditure outran his means, necessity drove him to be
cruel to his subjects. His lavish bounty to his beneficiaries forced him
to procure his supplies by criminal methods[120] from his victims. He
was conscious that his subjects hated him for the wrongs which he did
them, but found it no easy matter to atone for his sins without loss to
his exchequer. Instead he fought his opponents, converting even their
disaffection into a source of revenue. As for his nearest and dearest,
if any one omitted to address him in obsequious language and to display
a subservient attitude, or was suspected of plotting against the realm,
he was incapable of self-control and punished relatives and friends
alike, one after another, as though they were open enemies; to such
crimes was he driven by his desire that honour should be paid to himself
alone.
I find confirmation for my belief that this passion was the key to his
character in the manner in which he conferred his honours on Cæsar and
Agrippa and the rest of his friends. He looked for a return in kind of
the service which he paid to his superiors; his gifts were the most
excellent he could conceive, but the way in which he gave them revealed
his desire to receive the like.