relieved Masâda, captured also the fortress of Rêssa in the south,' and advanced to besiege Jerusalem. From this city the Parthians had withdrawn some time before into Northern Syria, and Antigonus wavered to and fro in his critical task of struggling against Herod as well as against the Romans. He protested to the Romans that if they would not have him as king, they should at least only replace him by another member of his house. He sought to acquire the favour of the Roman general, and even rivalled Herod in making the best preparations for the Romans for their camp in the impending winter; but yet he was obliged to attempt to cut off the supplies which Herod procured through Jericho out of Samaria, which from hatred of Jerusalem became strongly devoted to him, and he was unable to prevent the Romans from themselves occupying and plundering Jericho, where the two Judean parties had a violent struggle. During this winter (B.C. 39-38) Herod had, indeed, no rest. He despatched his brother Joseph to Idumea to prevent any revolutions' from breaking out there; he placed his wives in security in Samaria; marched in person against Galilee, the greater part of which had gone over again to Antigonus; after a severe combat vanquished the robbers at Arbêla, east of the chief town, Sepphoris, already named; and, through his youngest brother, Pherôras, restored the important fortress of Alexandreum,2 to serve as the nearest bulwark against Jerusalem on the side of the north. Not yet, however, was the whole country tranquillised, and when the tyrant thought that he had at last enslaved all Galilee, many of the most desperate took refuge with wife and child in caves under the most inaccessible cliffs. These he now cleared out by letting down armed men in baskets suspended from above by ropes, but the process was accompanied with the most atrocious cruelties; 3 and yet he had scarcely taken his departure to Samaria when the whole country was again in flames against his governor, and he only succeeded in restoring some amount of quiet by severities still more oppressive. When the Parthian campaign was half over, Antony sent two legions, with the cavalry appertaining to them, to his aid; but when their leader, Machæras, entered the country he was thrown into such con

The position of this fortress, which is also spelt Opñora, can only be inferred from Ant. xiv. 13, 9; 15, 2, and the corresponding passages in the Bell. Jud.; lying far to the south, it is perhaps identical with 07, Num. xxxiii. 21 sq.

2 P. 382.

3 The special method employed was setting the caves on fire, so that those who were shut up within were suffocated in the smoke: an act of cruelty justly made the subject of reproach against the French in the Algerian war.

fusion by an embassy of Antigonus (and also, it was said, by his bribes) about the whole subject of the dispute, that he treated the Judeans on either side as enemies. Upon this Herod resolved to hasten to Antony, who was then at Samosata, on the Euphrates, and was thoroughly tired of Syrian affairs. He brought him fresh resources, and by new services rendered himself so acceptable to him that Antony promised him all support, and in particular the assistance of two more legions under the command of the valiant general Sosius (or Sossius).

It was now, however, high time for him to return; his kingdom had yet to be conquered, and at the beginning of the year 37 B.C. everything went very unfavourably. His brother Joseph had allowed himself to be drawn into a battle near Jericho, and was defeated and slain. All Galilee was again in rebellion, and through the fury of the oppressed many of Herod's adherents had even been hunted into the lake. The far south, too, was in a ferment, and Machæras had been obliged to throw himself into the fortress of Gitta.1 These events had also stimulated to an incredible degree the courage of those who had been for two years shut up in Jerusalem. It was resolved to hold out to the last extremity, and the previous events were regarded as the premonitory signs of the final coming of the great help of heaven. Messianic hopes of speedy fulfilment woke up in security; and Antigonus despatched under Pappus against the Roman general Machæras and against Samaria an army, which encamped at Isanas. Herod was at Daphne, near Antioch, when the news of this reached him. With two legions caught up upon his march he hastened furious to the south. He made his way safely through Galilee, and then fell on Jericho and its neighbourhood. There is no parallel to the cruelty with which, in order to avenge his brother's death, he set on fire five cities near Jericho, slaying at the same time two thousand men. The army of Pappus made a brave resistance, but was defeated, and Herod caused even the defenceless troops to be strangled in immense heaps. The terror which he excited now became general, and had it not been still winter, he might have captured Jerusalem without delay. He preferred, however, to conduct

According to the common reading, Jos. Bell. Jud. i. 17, 2, this Gitta is transferred to Idumea, so that we cannot suppose it to be that situated in Samaria; but in Ant. xiv. 15, 10, the language of Josephus is less definite, and that it really did lie in Samaria is confirmed by Ant. xiv. 15, 12.

2 This place, Ant. xiv. 15, 2, for which

Cana, Bell. Jud. i. 17, 5, is certainly a mistake, should therefore be looked for not too far from Gitta, and is perhaps the present Azzun to the south of it. It is true that in the passage cited from the Bell. Jud., it is only the position of Herod's camp which is mentioned; still it is probably the same place.

the siege without disturbance in better weather, availing himself of the experiences of Pompey twenty-seven years previously; nay, he was now so sure of his speedy and final victory that he married his royal bride in Samaria during the siege. Sosius, also, with his powerful army, now advanced for the first time. from Phoenicia against Jerusalem; and an immense force of Roman and Judean troops gradually gathered around the city, which was now completely invested. The summer of 37, however, brought heavy toils to both besiegers and besieged. Within the city was a large and exceedingly active party, ready to fight to the death, and well practised in all the arts of defence, while many put their hopes in the invincibility of the holy place. Special zeal for the cause of Antigonus was displayed by the sons of Bâbâs, who were related to him, and enjoyed great esteem among the people,' as well as by many others belonging to the noblest families. Moreover, in consequence of the proximity of the sabbatical year, there was a great want of provisions throughout the whole neighbourhood, while the besieged had collected all its previous produce for themselves. The first wall was taken in forty days, and the second in fifteen. The outer part of the temple was next captured, not, however, without reducing some of its buildings to ashes, and with it the lower city. The besieged then retired into the inner temple and the upper city, asked for animals for their daily sacrifice, and continued their defence undaunted. This rendered the final assault the more reckless, when the Judeans in Herod's forces were no less wanton than the Romans. Herod restrained the Roman soldiers, it is true, from desecrating the temple and plundering the city, rewarding them out of his private fortune. Antigonus, however, who at length with shameful faint-heartedness gave himself up to Sosius, was dishonourably executed at Antioch by Antony, at Herod's request.3 It happened that Jerusalem fell on this occasion, as it had fallen twenty-seven years before under Pompey, on the great fast day; and thus did a Mattathias bring to a close the last real elevation of Israel, which his ancestor Mattathias had formerly begun.

1 Cf. Ant. xv. 7, 10.

2 Ant. xiv. 16, 2; xv. 1, 2. According to what has been already said, p. 343, there had been fourteen such years, or ninety-eight ordinary years. This estimate agrees exactly, and consequently contains an important confirmation of all further computations of this period.

Cf. the brief narratives of these events by heathen writers, Strabo in Jos. Ant. xv. 1, 2; Dio Cassius, xlix. 22, and

also Plut. Anton. cap. 36; Liv. Epit. 128. Strabo in particular gives due prominence to the fact that this dishonourable execution of a king against all usage (by the axe) was only allowed by the Romans, because it seemed to be absolutely necessary on Herod's account for terrifying the Judeans. In his Geogr. xvi. 2, 46, Strabo also says some very severe things about Herod, who had then only been dead a few years.

III. HEROD AND THE RUINS OF THE ASMONEANS, 37-4, B.C.

Having thus attained dominion over the whole country by his own ambition and violence, together with Roman aid and under the dreaded protection of Roman supremacy, Herod maintained his power almost unchallenged for a period of thirty-four years, until his death. During his reign there were not wanting intelligent men who highly admired his daring energy and his very successful rise in the world; who even discerned in the accidents of his life marks of a special divine protection; who attached themselves to him with unchanging fidelity, and served him gladly with all the abilities which they possessed. Those among his servants who were entrusted with the highest posts of power remained loyal to him until after his death. Such were his secretary, the orator Nicolaus, belonging to an eminent family of Damascus ;3 his brother Ptolemæus, keeper of the great seal and minister of finance, and a number of military officers. In Nicolaus, in particular, he possessed a servant of inestimable ability and faithfulness, whose equal he would have sought in vain. Famous also in the sphere of heathen literature, this personage was himself sprung from a very wealthy family. At an early age he was a highly educated Peripatetic, and was well versed in history. He was an extremely clever poet, orator, and administrator; he could entertain princes-even Augustus-agreeably; and he was besides, both in' learned pursuits and in public affairs, an absolutely indefatigable worker. He did not seek court Zwoavvh, were the same, we should possess a still more distinct proof; for that Nicolaus wrote dramas is also stated by Suidas under Nicolaus; but the same writer's statement that his father Antipater, when on his death-bed, ordered him to

This number is quite firmly established by data so exact as Jos. Bell. Jud. i. 33, 8; Ant. xvii. 8, 1. According to this, therefore, Herod died about three years before the Christian era.-On a new biography of Herod see the Jahrbb. der Bibl. Wiss. viii. p. 230 sq.

3

2 For instance, when in the last war he went just in time out of a house, whose roof fell in immediately after, or when, unarmed and even unclothed, he escaped from the danger of falling into the hands of armed enemies, as is related at length in Jos. Ant. xiv. 15, 11, 13; cf. xv. 6, 7. Josephus does not say that he was a Judean; but it is certain that there was a large Judean community in Damascus, to which he might have belonged, p. 239; there was no need for him, however, as a Hellenist, to be a better Judean than his master himself. If the Damascene who, according to Eustathius on Dionys. Periegesis, v. 976, wrote the drama of woaris or

5

sacrifice T A, must not lead us into inferring too much from it.

Cf. Jos. Ant. xvii. 9, 4 (Herod had given Ptolemæus a village near Samaria, xvii. 10, 9); 8, 2; xvi. 7, 2; 9, 5; 10, 5, 7.

The trifling contradiction between Ant. xvii. 9, 3, and is insignificant; cf. further Bell. Jud. i. 24, 2; 33, 8; ii. 2, 1, 3 (where the same contradiction also occurs); 4, 3; 5, 1.

5 We are better acquainted with him from the important fragments of his biography, Müller's Fragm. Hist. Græc. iii. pp. 348-355; yet this appears to me not to have been written by himself, but probably by his brother.

service for its rewards or pleasures; on the other hand, though extremely popular and highly esteemed among the most powerful Romans of his time, he always held back like a true Peripatetic in a wise simplicity and retirement, and found his chief pleasure in the occupations of a literary man. When he had once, however, entered the service of Herod, who was about ten years older than himself,' he continued uninterruptedly faithful to him, although he did not always accord with his actions: and in his great work on universal history in one hundred and forty-four books,2 which he certainly began during the lifetime and in part for the entertainment of the king, he described his whole career after its close with as much minuteness as partiality and affection. Though probably Judean in origin, he was, however, in disposition completely heathen, like his sovereign; and it is therefore less surprising that in narrating his master's life he often employs language of concealment or palliation of which even Josephus openly expresses his disapproval.3

If, however, we contemplate the personality of Herod apart from his friends and flatterers, we cannot deny that there have rarely been united in any ruler so much tenacious strength of mind, so much almost inexhaustible address and sagacity, and so much inflexible activity, as were combined in him: even the surname of the Great, though only applied to him subsequently by a misunderstanding of a Greek expression,' he at any rate merits within the series of his own relations and in the circuit. of the sovereigns of the century. Loving power and command above everything, he was yet not insensible to the blessings of

1 As we learn from his biography, Op. cit. P. 353.

2 The fragments which have been preserved are printed with some new ones of larger extent, now published for the first time in Müller's Fragm. iii. p. 356 sqq. Probably his life of Augustus also originally formed only a section of this gigantic work. Such a writer would certainly be able to call to his aid many tributary hands, and his hundred and forty-four books remind us of the hundred and forty of Livy.

3 Ant. xvi. 7, 1.

4 Josephus first employs this surname in the history of the family of the Herods, Ant. xviii. 5, 4. It might, therefore, be reasonably conjectured that originally the name simply meant, in Hebrew fashion, the elder, in contrast to the younger Herod (Antipas) and others, as for instance 'EλKías & μéyas, Ant. xviii. 8, 4, and in

the exactly corresponding case of Agrippa the Great, Ant. xvii. 2, 2; xviii. 5, 1, 4; xx. 5, 2, we might simply suppose a contrast intended to Agrippa II. as the younger of this name. But if this Agrippa was designated on a coin BACIAETC METAC (Eckhel, Doctr. iii. p. 492), because he once more ruled over all Palestine in its wider extent, it would have been still easier to give Herod a similar title (although the coins of his reign hitherto found do not bear the word METAC), and the origin of this surname may be derived from this source. In that case it only contained the same sort of boast as that of an Indian prince of the present day, who calls himself Mahârâg'â; and in fact Agrippa, at any rate in the last passage cited, Ant. xx. 5, 2, is not called absolutely ó péyas, but, as on the coin, ὁ μέγας βασιλεύς.