hhM^ jtr^/C, JUDAISM AT ROME B.C. 76 to A.D. 140. kl% BY EREDEEIC HUIDEKOPEE. THIRD EDITION. NEW YORK: JAMES MILLER 1880. CoPYETGHT, 1876. By FREDERIC HUIDEKOPER. University Press: John Wilson & Son, Cambridge. PREFACE. Many years ago the writer of this collected some ex- tracts from Christian anticipations of Rome's destruction. While doing this, he noticed that similar views had pre- vailed among Jews and Eomans. Investigation convinced him that the former were the originators. This implied Jewish influence on the Roman mind, which he at first underrated, regarding it as confined to moments of ex- citement and as affecting merely the populace. Only by degrees did he discover how continuous and powerful it had been, and that it was directly due to the superiority of Judaism over heathenism. Debarred from night study, the writer has pursued his work amid daily avocations and interruptions. He could have wished to rearrange and revise some portions of it yet further ; but to have attempted this might have endangered publication under his own supervision, and would have precluded attention to other duties, and to the completion of another short work which, if eyesight permit, he would thankfully finish. It seems morally impossible that Judaism and Greek culture, which were driven out with such difficulty from Italy, should have made no impression upon Oriental nations. A remnant of 'Jews has been found as far east- IV PREFACE. ward as China. The moral precepts of Burmah and Siam savor of Judaism.1 Greeks held intercourse with India loni^ before and after the Christian era.2 How far the better features of the Civil or Roman Law resulted from monotheistic influence would be an interest- ing, and might prove a copious question. Anions suggestions which should have been made in the work is : — that women, equally as men, of the popular party have been grossly maligned by their patrician op- ponents, who too often were in a position to prevent safe utterance of the truth. On two cases of this, those of Livilla and a granddaughter of Tiberius called the younger Julia, remarks have been offered.3 Concerning the first Julia, daughter of Augustus, it may be a fair question whether her character also has not been blasted by party policy or malignity.4 1 Malcom quotes "Five principal " The king of Siam recently opened and positive [Burmese] laws: 1. Thou a new mint. . . . The high priest re- shalt not kill. 2. Thou shalt not steal, cited the five commands. These are, 3. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 'Do not kill; do not steal; do not 4. Thou shalt not lie. 5. Thou shalt commit adultery ; do not speak false- not drink any intoxicating liquor." — hood ; do not drink strong drink.' " — Travels, 8th edit. p. 189. Cp. Exod. Evening Post (Weekly, N. Y.), Jan- 20, 13-16 ; Lev. 10, 9. uary 10, 1877. a Arabic numerals, whether obtained by Arabs direct from India, or at second hand from Greeks, imply communication centuries after the Chris- tian era between India and Western Asia. Montfaucoii cites some of these (Pa laeograph. Graze, pp. 345, 346) from a Greek manuscript. 3 Concerning Livilla, see pp. 529, 530, 538 ; concerning the younger Julia, friend of Pomponia, pp. 241, 518. Julia Sabina, daughter of the patrician idol Titus, was bitterly misrepresented for friendship with her uncle Domitian. The old nurse who at personal risk placed the ashes of uncle and niece together (Sueton. Domit. 17) is, by her actions, an un- suspicious witness to their mutual kindness and family affection. 4 The aristocracy were anxious to put young Antony out of the way. The charge against him was adultery with his cousin Julia, Her father (at that time ruled by patricians) credited, and the popular party dis- credited, the charge. The language of Philo (Embassy, 40) concerning Julia, half a century later, seems unaccountable, if the charges against PREFACE. V On the eve of going to press I learn that Professor Beesly of England, in the "Fortnightly Review" for De- cember, 1867, and January, 1868, treats the account of Tiberius, by Tacitus, as " an elaborate libel." I have no knowledge as to his course of argument. In a few instances a brief quotation has been repeated, either through inadvertence or to save readers the need of recurring to it. To Professors Gary of Meadville, and Abbot of Cam- bridge, my thanks are due for kind offices. The latter, as a labor of friendship, has read many of the proof-sheets, and through his suggestions some errors and oversights have been remedied. Meadville, Pa., September 2, 1876. In this second edition Index III. has been reprinted, as also a paragraph of the Preface; and some minor changes have been made of which a list is appended on o a fly-leaf. Meadville, Pa., August 8, 1877. her found credence in the community where he lived. The unreserved intercourse of cousins may have been seized upon as the means of mur- dering one and cruelly injuring the other. TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. ANCIENT JUDAISM. Page . 1 2 Section I. Its field for Growth II. Its First Impediment III. The Roman Aristocracy its Chief Enemy .... 5 IV. They oppose its Associate, Greek Culture . . . H V. Close of Jewish Influence in Europe 14 CHAPTER II. CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 1 R I. Chief Causes ...•••••• 1. Jews recognized a Divine Being who took interest in the Moral Education of Mankind ....♦••• Heathen Deit'es were regarded as devoid of such Interest . 18 2. The Jewish View of Religious Duties included Morality . 20 Heathen Views did not 25 3 Future Existence to be hoped if God exercise Moral Care of us, otherwise not • 4. The average Character of Jews superior to that of Heathens 27 II. Accessories and Hindrances 1. Ceremonial Law • 2. Offerings for the Temple 3. Popular Rights . . • • • 4. Relative Antiquity of Monotheism and Idolatry ... 35 5. Sibylla ...••• J 6. Astrology and Soothsaying 7. Mechanical Skill aided Jewish Influence •••**: 8. Absence of Political Control ; its Effect on Hellenistic Jews . 40 CHAPTER III. JEWISH INFLUENCE ORIGINATES THE STOICS. I. Greek Stoics M II. Roman Stoics viii CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV. JEWISH DIVISION INTO WEEKS. T. Adopted by Heathens 66 II. Numbering and Nomenclature of the Days ... 68 III. Lords Day 70 CHAPTER V. AFFILIATED QUESTIONS. I. Public Games 71 II. War 82 III. Annexation and Disintegration 83 IV. Regicide 85 V. Slavery 86 VI. Expensive Living 89 VII. Suppression of Documents 92 VIII. Sympathy of the Jewish with the Roman Aristocracy 96 IN. Murder of Body-Guards 107 X. Two Senatorial Usurpations 108 XL Herod Agrippa, Senior 112 XII. Insincerity of Patrician Hobbies 114 CHAPTER VI. BELIEF OF ROME'S impending destruction. I. As a Precedent of the New Era 116 II. Jewish Expectations 120 Sibylline Oracles 120 Second Book of Esdras 130 III. Roman Apprehensions . 134 IV. Views of Jewish and Semi-Jewish Christians . . 135 V. The Roman Emperor as Beliar. Origin of the Concep- tion called Antichrist 137 CHAPTER VII. CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, B. C. 76 - A. D. 19. I. b. c 7G. The Erythraean Verses cause Discussion of Monotheism 141 II. b.c. 75-63. Other Sibylline Verses. King from the East 143 III. b.c. 62-50. Conflict of Parties and Religious Ideas. Cicero a Reactionist 147 IV. b. c 49. Romans throw away Idol Images during the Passover . 151 V. b. c. 44. Caesar's Death. Cicero disavows Heathenism 154 CONTENTS. ix VI. b.c. 43-31. Virgil and Horace. The Oracle at Delphi 156 VII. b.c. 30-18. Patrician Reaction. Virgil burlesquks part OF THE ERYTHILEAN VERSES 159 VIII. b. c. 18- a. d. 2. Attack on Monotheism and Popular Rights 160 IX. Schools of Law . . . 170 X. a. d. 2 - 14. Augustus recedes from ultra-Patricianism . 175 XI. a. d. 14-18. Tiberius Emperor. Patrician Steps towards Rebellion 179 CHAPTER VIII. CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 19- A. D. 70. I. a. d. 19, 20. Patrician Rebellion. Conversions to Juda- ism BECOME ILLEGAL . . . . . . . . 186 II. a. d. 21-37. Effects of Patrician Reaction . . .195 III. a. d. 37-41. Caligula 199 1. His Character 199 2. Order of Events in his Reign . . . . . . 205 3. The alleged Statue for the Jewish Temple .... 215 IV. a. d. 41 - 51. Claudius. A Reign of Patricianism and Heathenism 222 V. a. d. 52-54. Expulsion of Jews. Paul in Greece. Clau- dius as Belial. Philip martyred. Sunday instituted 228 VI. a. d. 54-62. Earlier Years of Nero's Reign . . . 241 VII. a. d. 63 - 70. Fire at Rome. Jewish War. Persecution of Christians 242 CHAPTER IX. apocalypse, or book of Christ's second coming. I. Title and Authorship 255 II. Date ' 258 III. Divisions and Object 259 IV. Phraseology and Illustrations 260 V. Outline of the Book 261 CHAPTER X. chronological narrative a. d. 70-138. I. a. d. 70-81. Ti?e Reign of Vespasian a Coalition. That of Titus favors Reaction 270 II. a. d. 81-96. Domitian. Expulsion of Monotheism . 275 III. A. D. 96-98. NERVA 286 IV. Position about the Close of the First Century . • 286 CONTENTS. 1. Senatorial Families 2P6 2. Corruption of the Judiciary . . . . . 2S7 3. Extinction of Oracles discussed by Lamprias • . . 2S7 4. Effort needed to keep up Belief in Omens . . . 290 5. Public Games 291 6. Social Gatherings and Suppers 293 7. Fashionable Education portrayed in the De Oratoribus . 295 8. Vestal Virgins 296 9. Dio Chrysostom sympathizes with Monotheism . . . 297 10. Plutarch indirectly defends it 305 11. Tacitus maligns it 310 12. Pliny, as Tool of Treasury Thieves, persecutes it . . 312 13. Gentile Monotheists 318 14. The Name Christian " 319 V. a. d. 98-117. Trajan. Reaction and Persecution . . 320 VI. a. d. 117-138. Hadrian. Jewish Revolt .... 325 II. CHAPTER XI. EFFECTS OF THE JEWISH REVOLT UNDER HADRIAN. Direct Effects 1. Gnostics, or Anti-Jewish Christians .... 2. Heathen Names affixed to Jewish Documents 3. Gentile Evidence substituted for Jewish in Acts of Pilate 4. Embitterment of Semi-Jewish Christians against Jews . Indirect Effects 1. Extravagant Use of the Old Testament .... 2. Antitheses of Irenreus 4. Jesus deified as subordinate God of the Old Testament . 330 331 336 342 342 344 344 349 349 CHAPTER XII. CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 138-180- I. a.d. 138-161. Antoninus Pius . II. a.d. 161-180. Marcus Antoninus 359 360 CHAPTER XIII. HUMAN CULTURE. T. Moral, Literary, and Mental II. iEsTiiEiic Culture, or Refinement III. Industrial Culture IV. Greek Culture a Result of Monotheism V. The Dark Ages 363 371 376 382 3S7 CONTENTS. XI II. CHAPTER XIV. MONOTHEISM. Its Origin 1. Whether inherent in mankind 2. Or due to Reasoning .... 3. Or to Revelation Judaism a Preparation for Christianity 388 388 390 390 394 APPENDIX. I. ii. in. IV. v. VI. VII VIII. IX NOTE A. SIBYLLINE BOOKS. Cum^ean B.C. 461 -b. c. 83; a Patrician Forgery . . .395 Verses from Erythr^e. b. c. 76 402 Part A. Monotheism taught. Heathenism decried . . .405 B. Mosaic History until the Flood 411 C Man's History from the Flood until the Rise ofldolatry 412 D. Predictions, professedly, of History during the Contin- uance of Idolatry 415 E. God's Kingdom 421 F. The Judgment 426 G. Conclusion 431 Sibylline Compositions, b. c. 75 - a. d. 200, were Jewish . 434 Christian Compositions were later than a. d. 200 . 441 Additional Remarks 446 1. Origin of different Names for Sibylla .... 446 2. Aristocracy hostile, Monotheism and the Popular Party friendly, to Sibylline Literature 447 3. Sibylline Literature confined at first to Italy ... 448 4. Its Teaching perverted 448 5. Christians in Second Century claim a non-Jewish Origin for Sibylline Writings 449 6. Causes of present Confusion in Sibylline Productions . 449 7. Verses denouncing Rome are not earlier than b. c. 63 . . 450 8. Copies of Erythraean Verses rare in A. d. 400 . . . 450 9. The supposed Writing on Leaves 450 Patrician Opposition Likes Quotations by Lactantius 453 A Query concerning Bacis Hystaspes 459 xii CONTENTS. NOTE B. MEANING OF CERTAIN WORDS. I. Words used by Jews and Christians 460 1. eeoaefiua 460 2. OeoaepT]! 462 3. Oeoaeptiv 464 4. euadpeia 465 5. euaeprjs 466 6. tvcrefidv 467 7. da^j3eia, dvcra^eia, 6.vo}xia 467 8. dcre/3r;s, 5vos 471 12. SouXos 471 13. \aol ......••••• 4<2 II. Terms applied by Heathens to Jews or Christians . 472 1. Foreign Superstition, or Foreign Rites .... 472 2. &deoi, aaefieh 473 3. yfros ........... 474 NOTE C. DELATORES, — PROSECUTORS ON SHARES 475 NOTE D. BOOK OF ENOCH. I. Its two Chief Objects 482 II. The Judgment 483 III. The Planets 484 IV. Punishment ok Angels 484 V. Renovation of the Universe by Fire 485 VI. Soul and Spirit 486 VII. Parallelism of the Apocalypse and Book of Enoch . 486 VIII. Additions to Book of Enoch 488 NOTE E. ROMAN CHRONOLOGY 489 NOTE F. NERO'S RETURN. I. As held by Romans 491 II. As held i\ Jews ' 493 III. As held by Christians 499 CONTENTS. Xlll NOTE G. TIBERIUS. I. His Character 504 II. His Retirement to Capre.e 518 III. Patrician Revolt of a. d. 31 522 IV. Social Results of the Rebellion 531 V. Tacitus falsifies History 534 NOTE H. EGYPTIAN WORSHIP AT ROME 542 NOTE I. JEWISH REVOLT UNDER NERO. I. Outline of its Course 545 II. Causes of the Revolt 549 III. Florus 651 IV. Josephus . V. Agrippa and Berenice 560 60 VI. The Christians ° NOTE J. TWO MODERN WORKS. I. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography . 561 II. Giubon 561 NOTE K. XENOPHON, PLATO, AND HERACLITUS. I. XENOPHON 1. General Remarks on him and Plato . 2. His Mention of a Creator 3. His Mention of a Providence .... 4. His Argument from Evidence of Design 6. He attributes Judicial Morality to the Gods II. Plato 1. He borrows from Judaism .... 2. Hi3 Order of Creation agrees with that in Genesis 3. He adopts both Narratives and burlesques one . 4. He uses Ideas, or Language, similar to Jewish, concerning Hills 5. He uses the Term "Lucifer" 6. His " Soul of the World " . 671 7. He calls the Deity Father (in the Sense of Originator) . 571 8. His View of Gods in their Judicial Capacity . • .571 565 565 566 566 567 568 568 568 569 570 xiv CONTENTS. 9. His View of a Future Life 572 10. His View of the Origin of Motion 573 11. His View of the Character of Gods 575 12. His Panacea was Force 576 13. Obscurity of his Language 579 III. Heraclitus, Predecessor of the Stoics .... 580 NOTE L. TWO NARRATIVES IN GENESIS I. -XI 581 NOTE M. LOCALITY OF GREEK CULTURE 687 INDEXES. I. Quotations from Scripture 591 II. Citations from Ancient Authors 593 III. Words and Subjects 598 JUDAISM AT ROME. CHAPTER I. ANCIENT JUDAISM. § I. Its Field for Growth. At the present day the Jews exercise no perceptible religious influence on the Christian communities amid which they dwell. Their religion has no advantage over Christianity, either as regards its accordance with reason, its adaptation to human wants, or the evidence on which it rests. Not improbably the absence of modern conver- sions to it has blinded prominent writers to its influence on the heathens of antiquity. That the Jews in Eastern countries made numerous converts to the main points of their faith is obvious from the frequent mention of such converts in the Few Testa- ment, and from addresses or allusions to them, which im- ply their existence as a well-recognized class.1 In the course of this work it will become evident, that in Syria and portions of Asia Minor, and perhaps even to the eastward of these countries, they had, at the Christian era, largely displaced the ancient religions. In North Egypt they were numerous and influential, as will appear from events in the year 37 ; and their views were, before the Christian era, gaining rapid foothold at Rome. Mul- i See note 34 ; Note B, footnotes 43, 44 ; Ch. XIII. note 39 ; com- pare Ch. IV. 2 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. I. titudes of Gentiles must, without adopting Judaism, have adopted Monotheism. Wherever belief in a Moral Euler of the universe was diffused, civilization received an impetus. Belief in such a Ruler gave encouragement to, and sense of responsibil- ity for, a right use of life. Intellectual and social devel- opment became most marked in those Gentile communities where Jewish influence was greatest. § II. Its First Impediment. A difficulty experienced by modern missionaries in heathen lands2 evidently confronted the Jews in their 2 " Of late, I have been busily engaged in collating notes and quota- tions, on the proper word for expressing the name of the Supreme Be- ing, in Chinese. The weight of authority, i. e. most of the most learned missionaries, have given their influence in favor of using Shang-te, but many others dislike the term exceedingly, as being the proper name of the chief Chinese god ; and when we use it, the people at once say, ' 0 yes, that 's our Shang-te.' I have satisfied myself pretty well that Shin is the proper word to use." — Memoirs of W. H. Lowrie, pp. 366, 367. " Not long ago a very respectable man came to my house one Sabbath. I . . . asked him if he knew anything of Jesus. He replied, he had heard he was the son of ' Yuh hwang ta te,' the 'Jewelled Great Empe- ror.' This is the chief god, . . . and he is known indifferently by the name above given, or by that of Shang-tc. I never use the term now, having uniformly found that the people supposed I meant their own Shang-te."— Ibid., p. 421. " We [the convention] were stopped by a question, . . . ' What is the proper word for God in Chinese ? ' Morrison and Milne have adopted the word Shin, which, according to the best judgment which I can form, means God, or Divinity in general. Mr. Medhurst for many years used the same, term, and even so late as this present year, 1847, has published a dictionary in which he says, ' The Chinese themselves, for God, and invisible beings in general, use Shin.' But some twelve years ago or more, he began to use Shang-te, Supreme ruler, for the true God, and shin for false god. Mr. Gutzlaff also did the same ; and these two being the best and most experienced Chinese scholars, had of course great weight. And most of the missionaries were carried away by their example. For some years past, however, there has been a good deal said on the subject, and a strong disposition manifested to return to the old way. SJutyig-te §n.] ITS FIRST IMPEDIMENT. 3 first efforts. The Greek and Latin languages contained no term for the One Supreme Being. The word " god " is objected to, first, as being the distinctive title of the national deity of China, and hence something like the Jupiter of Rome ; and, second, it is not a generic term, and cannot be used in such passages as ' Chemosh thy God, and Jehovah our God,' ' If Jehovah he God,' etc., 'The un- known God, him declare I unto you,' etc. In fact there are many verses where the point and emphasis rest on the use of the same generic word all through, as in John 10, 35, 3C, 1 Cor. 8, C, etc. Hence of late many of the missionaries wish to return to the old word. . . . Dr. Medhurst, however, . . . printed a book of nearly three hundred pages, in which he maintains that sliin never means god, much less the Supreme God. This, by the way, is in opposition to three dictionaries of his own, published in the last ten years. . . . We went on with the revision very well, till we came to Matt. 1, -2d, where the word Thcos occurs. Dr. Bridgman then proposed that we use the word Shin. Bishop Boone seconded this ; and it was well known that my views coincided with theirs. Dr. Medhurst and Mr. Stronach took decided ground for Shany-te ; and so we have now been discussing this cjuestion for three weeks, Medhurst and Boone being chief speakers. . . . Bishop Boone and myself worked hard for a week, and wrote out an argument for Shin, covering twenty-six folio pages. Dr. Medhurst . . . took our answer so seriously, that he said he must have some weeks to prepare a reply. ... I greatly fear that the re- sult of all will be, that each side will hold their own views, and Dr. Med- hurst and Mr. Stronach will4" secede. In that case there will be two versions or none. A large majority of the missionaries in China, I be- lieve, are for Shin. . . . This of itself is a strong proof for Shin, for it shows that even the acknowledged Chinese scholarship of Medhurst and Gutzlaff is not able to command assent for Shang-te. But I did not mean to write so much on this." — Ibid., pp. 441, 442. "What word will you use to speak of God? ... If you use the name of the highest divinity known to the people, they will think you favor their own system of religion. If you use the abstract term of God, they will ask, ' What God do you mean ? ' and perhaps will run over the names of half a dozen of their principal gods, to see if it be not some one of these you intend. You say no ; you mean ' the true God.' Why, they never thought of such a thing as a false god ! They will very willingly allow that your god is a true God, but they expect equal toleration for their own ; and you will find it no easy matter to convince them that when you speak of God, you mean only one." — Ibid., pp. 449, 450. Compare in Ch. XIV. note 2, the difficulties of South African missionaries, as narrated by Moffat. 4 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. I. was a common noun as is our word " MAN." If we say- that man is of limited capacity, or liable to err, or mortal, the expression is readily understood as meaning that hu- man nature is limited, or that men are liable to err, or that all men are mortal. The heathen use of the term "god" was analogous. We say "Man proposes, God dis- poses." By " man " we mean any mortal. A Greek or Ro- man would equally have understood the word " god " as meaning any divine beino;.3 In order to meet this diffi- culty, the Jews were forced to connect with the word GOD, or to substitute for it, adjectives which would partially at least convey their meaning.4 3 According to Plutarch, " Antipater of Tarsus, in his work on the gods, writes verbally as follows : . . . ' We regard then [any] god as a being blessed, imperishable and beneficent to men.' Then, carrying out each of these ideas, he says : ' and indeed men generally iravres regard them as imperishable.'" — Plutarch, Be Stoic. Repugnant. 38 ; Opp. 10, 346. Again, " That evil should take place according to the prior design irpbvoiav of God . . . exceeds every invention of absurdity ; for how then shall they be givers of good rather than of evil ? and how shall evil any longer be [deemed] antagonist to the gods ?" — Plutarch, Adv. Stoicos, 14 ; Opp. 10, 397. Josephus, in a passage which illustrates the use of language, though it errs in ascribing polytheism to Tiberius, says: "Tiberius . . . prayed to his country's gods, . . . trusting — as more reliable than his own opinion or wish — whatever should be de- clared by [some] god concerning them [his grandchildren]." — Josephus, Antiq. 18, 6, 9. See like use of the term by Seneca, quoted in Ch. II. note 3. Compare, on the foregoing subject, Norton, Genuineness, 3, Note D, as also article by Ezra Abbot in the Christian Examiner, 45, 389 - 406. 4 The Jewish writers in the Sibylline Oracles term the Deity the "Great God," Qebs fxeyas, 1, 53; 2, 27; 3, 19, 97, 162, 194, 24f, 2S4, 297, 306, 490, 549, 556, 557, 565, 575, 584, 593 ; 4, 6, 25, 162 ; 7, 24 ; the "True God," 9e6s &\v)6iv5s, Proem, 2,46 (other editions 84) ; the " Highest," v\pi. 41], but practically, put a stop to accusations for Unbelief."— Dio Cass. 60, 3. " He discharged those who had fallen [into fetters] because of Unbelief and such charges." — Dio Cass. 60, 4. 16 Dio Cass. 66, 9. 17 Dio Cass. 66, 19. An explanatory remark which Dio puts into the mouth of Titus would, if it be not an invention, or if its connection have not been altered, imply that aaepeia in this instance meant disre- 10 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. I. Whether the prosecutions against, and expulsion of, Atheists and Unbelievers, at the close of Domitian's reign, were his doings, or whether the aristocracy carried them out during his absence and from hostility to him, will be discussed under its appropriate date. JSTerva, his suc- cessor, belonged to the popular party, and during his brief reign Unbelievers in the national deities were recalled. Under Trajan aristocratic ideas were dominant. Be- tween his government and the Jews a bitter state of feel- ing existed. It deserves notice that the party which so zealously proscribed its opponents for Unbelief, confessed, in the time of Claudius, its utter ignorance of how the gods were to be served, and needed to summon learned slaves from Etruria, who were supposed to have knowledge on the subject. Connected with this question of Unbelief was the po- sition assigned to praise of Homer as a test of orthodoxy. If Caligula expressed contempt for him, we can at once recognize that Caligula wTas no friend to patricianism.18 If Claudius frequently and publicly quoted the poet,19 his patricianism would be a safe inference. If Dio Chrysos- tom did not believe Homer, he was on that account charged with Unbelief.20 Plutarch tried to be on both sides of the fence simultaneously,21 and so perhaps did those who allegorized Homer.22 Vespasian's reign was a coalition between himself as head of the popular party, and Mucianus as leader of the moderate conservatives. The Senate was so reconstituted spect to the prince. Compare in the Appendix, Note A, § v. 4, and Note B, § ii. 2. 18 See Ch. VIII. note 55. ™ Sueton. Claud. 42. 20 See Appendix, Note A, foot-note 63. 21 See under Ch. X. § iv. the conclusion of sub-section 10. 22 " In one of the manuscripts [from Herculaneum] which was in the hands of the interpreters when I visited the museum, the author indulges in the speculation that all the Homeric personages were allegorical ; that Agamemnon was the ether, Achilles the sun, Helen the earth, Paris the air, Hector the moon, etc." — Lyell, Geology, Vol. 2, note on pp. 157, 158. Edit. London, 1835. § iv.] THE ARISTOCRACY OPPOSE GREEK CULTURE. 11 by him as to represent, for a time at least, better ideas, and in his reign dissent from heathen theology did not entail imprisonment and loss of life, nor even, if we may judge from the elder Pliny's case, of social standing.23 § IV. They oppose its Associate, Greek Culture. A relationship existed between Judaism and Greek culture, on the nature and cause of which some remarks will hereafter be offered.24 Any sketch of hostility by patricians to the former would be imperfect without men- tion of their hostility to the latter. It is plain, that, from an early date, Greek culture, accompanied not improbably by monotheistic ideas of human rights, was an object of special jealousy to patri- cians.25 On the contrary, in the days of Julius Cresar, 23 " I think it a human imbecility to inquire for the appearance and form of [a] god."— Pliny, Nat. Hist. 2, 5, 1. " The belief of marriages among the gods, and that in such an age no one has been born therefrom ; that some gods are superannuated and forever hoary, others youths and boys, [some] black, winged, lame, born from an egg, also living and dy- ing on alternate days, is the puerility of persons almost insane. But it is the excess of impudence to fabricate the existence among them of adul- teries and thereto of quarrels and hatreds, and even that there are tutelar divinities of thieves and criminals. It is god [like ?] dcus est for a mor- tal to assist a mortal, and this is the way to eternal glory. By this path the Roman leaders trod. By it Vespasian, the greatest ruler of any age, now treads with celestial step, in company with his children." — Pliny, Hat. Hist. 2, 5, .3, 4. Pliny was a Pantheist. His views of what be- fitted a divine nature accord with monotheistic ones, and contradict what had been upheld by the aristocracy. He leaned to the popular side, for he wrote a life of Pomponius, and, as above seen, praised Vespasian. 24 See Ch. XIII. § iv. and close of § I. 25 According to Suetonius (De IUust. Gram. 2), the earliest teacher of grammar at Rome was Crates. He was a Stoic, born at Mallus in Cilicia, educated at Tarsus, and, for a time, chief librarian at Pergamus. He came to Rome about b. c. 157, as ambassador of King Attalus. "Rhetoric also, in like manner as grammar, found a late reception among us [Romans] and also a somewhat more difficult one, since the fact is well established, that it was cultivated sometimes under prohibi- tion. . . . In tJie consulship of Caius Fanning Strabo arid M. Valerius 12 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. I. when popular ideas had ascendency, Greek culture found a welcome. He gave to physicians and teachers the right of Roman citizenship,26 so that when, in after years, foreigners, or, according to Pliny, Greeks specially, were expelled, an exception had to be made in favor of these two classes.27 At a later date, after the reactionary Messala [b. c. 161] . . . they [the Senate] decreed that ' M. Pomponius the praetor shall take such measures, and make such provisions, as the good of the Republic and the duty of his office require, that NO phi- losophers OB, RHETORICIANS BE SUFFERED AT ROME.' "After some interval, the censors, Cnaeus Domitius ^Enobarbus and Lucius Licinius Crassus [b. c. 92], issued the following edict upon the same subject : ' It is reported to us that certain persons have insti- tuted a new kind of discipline ; that our youth resort to their schools ; that they [to evade the law] have assumed the title of Latin Rhet- oricians ; and that young men waste their time there for whole days together. Our ancestors have ordained what instruction it is fitting their children should receive, and what schools they should attend. These novelties, contrary to the usages and customs of our ancestors, we neither approve, nor do they appear to us good. Wherefore it appears to be our duty that we should notify our judgment both to those who keep such schools and to those who are in the practice of frequenting thein, that they meet our disapprobation.' "But the same mode of teaching was not adopted by all. . . . ISTor did they omit, on occasion, to resort to translations from the Greek, and to expatiate in the praise, or to launch their censures on the faults, of illustrious men. They also dealt with matters connected with EVERY-day life, pointing out such as are useful and necessary, and such as are hurtful and needless."— Sueton. De Clar. Rhetor. 1, Bonn's trans, altered. Cato the censor, in his old age, not improbably between B. c. 160 and B. c. 150, wrote as follows to his son : " I will speak in its proper place concerning those Greeks. . . . Whenever that race shall impart [to us] its literature, it will corrupt all things, and yet more if it shall send its physicians hither." — Cato quoted in Pliny, Nat. Hist. 29, 7, 1. "He [Cato the censor] always maintained, moreover, that all Greeks SHOULD BE EXPELLED FROM ITALY." — Pliliy, Nat. Hist. 7, 31, 4. 20 Sueton. Cass. 43. 27 "The ancients . . . are said . . . when they expelled Greeks from Italy, long after Cato's time, to have excepted physicians." — Pliny, Nat. Hist. 29, 8, 1, :. This took place under Augustus. " On one occasion, in a season of great scarcity, ... he [Augustus] ordered out §rv.] THE ARISTOCRACY OPPOSE GREEK CULTURE. 13 reisrn of Claudius, we find even medical science decried by the aristocracy, as can safely be inferred from the lan- guage of Pliny in defending it.28 In determining the relations between patricianism and Greek culture, the sequence of events claims attention. Before the popular party gained ascendency, we find such culture decried or prohibited. During the ascendency of that party it was honored. Subsequently, when Augustus, under patrician influence, attacked and overthrew An- tony, we find that Dio Cassius puts into the mouth of Agrippa, the leader of patricianism, an argument for, and into the mouth of Maecenas, the patron of Greek culture, an argument against the abdication by Augus- tus of his authority,29 which would, at that date, have meant the restoration of unlimited power to the Senate. When patricianism gained yet more control, and drove its opponents from the Senate, Maecenas fell into disfavor.80 of the city . . . all foreigners, excepting physicians and the teachers of the liberal sciences. Part of the domestic slaves were also ordered to be dismissed." — Sueton. August. 42, Bonn's trans. The pretext for expulsion was a dearth, the result of accident or design. The real motive was, doubtless, a political one. Dio Cassius ^55, 26) mentions a banishment of gladiators and slaves in A. D. 6, because of dearth. The expulsion of Greeks may have taken place then, or earlier. 28 Pliny, 29, 8, 5. 29 The argument of Agrippa is in Dio Cass. 52, 2 - 13 ; that of Maece- nas follows it in §§ 14 -40. The conclusion of the former and beginning of the latter are lost. We can safely infer that Agrippa and Maecenas held opposing views, or they would not have been selected as opposing speakers. The arguments attributed to them cannot be trusted as rep- resenting their respective views on points introduced. These argu- ments are the work of some dexterous senatorial politician. He makes Agrippa — the leader and embodiment of the oligarchy — assume pop- ular government as the alternative to monarchical rule, and makes Maecenas suggest an expurgation of the Senate, effected by his enemies at a date which ended his political career. 30 "Between B.C. 21 and 16, . . . we have direct evidence that a coolness, to say the least, had sprung up between the emperor and his faithful minister. . . . The political career of Maecenas may be consid- ered as then at an end."— Smith, Diet, of Gr. and Rom. Biog. 2, 892, 893. It will be remembered that the patrician plot whereby nearly all 14 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. I. Yet later, under Augustus, we find, during this patrician rule, an ejection of the Greek population. The exclusion of Latin Stoics from public affairs31 was due, doubt- less, to their affinity with those exponents of Greek cul- ture who had borrowed most from Judaism. The scantiness of any literature save Greek must have made it, or translations from it, the main resource for filling libraries. It accords, therefore, with what we have just seen, that Julius Caesar, the popular leader, should have been the first to plan a public library at Rome, and when death prevented him from accomplishing it, that Pollio, one of his generals, prominent on the popular — ■ and perhaps also on the monotheistic — side, should have been the earliest to establish one.32 Whether the two libraries afterwards started by Augustus were freely open to the popular party and to its literature may (see Ch. V. note 58) be doubted. After A. D. 19, when monotheism at Eome became il- legal, the more conscientious and self-respecting Greeks may, especially in aristocratic reigns, have been chary of residing there. Such as were willing vehemently to advocate heathen customs and heathen deities might still be welcomed by patricians. The Greek population of the city not improbably deteriorated after the above-men- tioned date. § v. Close of Jewish Influence in Europe. A benevolent law of Domitian or Nerva had, in Hadri- an's time, been misapplied, in some regions at least, as members of the popular party were eliminated from the Senate took place in b. c. 18 or b. c. 17, under the lead of Agrippa. Maecenas is said (Dio Cass. 55, 7 ; Seneca, Epist. 114, s) to have advocated hu- mane measures as well as Greek literature. Whether Tacitus (An. 14, 53), by terming the leisure of Maecenas velut pcrcgrinum, meant to stig- matize it, may be a question. 31 " I call your attention to those Stoics, who, excluded republica from public affairs, have retired to a cultivation of [private] life and to the establishment of laws for the human race."- — Seneca, Epist. 14, 13; Opp. Philos. 2, 130. 82 Smith, Diet, of Antiq. 202, col. 2, art Bibliotkcca. §v.] CLOSE OF JEWISH INFLUENCE IN EUROPE. 15 a prohibition to the Jews of ' their national rite. This caused, about A. D. 130, a wide-spread and embittered war of several years' duration. The war stamped itself in un- mistakable characters on the mental and social history of the second century -as one of the noteworthy contests in the world's history ; yet historians have scarcely mentioned or alluded to this remarkable struggle. After its termi- nation the influence of Jews in Europe was at an end. Thenceforward they were an isolated people, unappre- ciated, and too often calumniated or maltreated, whilst, no doubt, they suffered in character and culture from the position in which they were placed. In Asia the remnants of Jewish influence must have been strong, for both Mohammedanism and Eastern Chris- tianity bear imprints of it.33 In Africa also it must have attracted attention in the third century if not later.34 33 Mohammedans have not only adopted many Jewish opinions, but at least one Jewish custom, that of abstinence from pork. The Oriental Church, according to Routh (Eeliq. Sacrcc, 1, 343, note), imitates Jews in forbidding the eating of blood. 34 Tertullian mentions {Adv. Jadceos, 1 ; Opp. p. 205, A) a dispute be- tween a convert to Judaism and a Christian as having attracted a crowd, part of whom sided with each. Compare his remarks cited in Ch. IV. note 11, concerning heathen suspension of work on the Sabbath. Comniodianus also cannot have written earlier than the third century. He was not an Asiatic, for he wrote in Latin. His style renders probable that he lived in Africa. In his Instructions he addresses heathens of doubtful mind in the following manner : " Why in the synagogue do you run to the Pharisees That [God] may be made merciful to you, whom outside you deny ? You go outside, you again seek [heathen] temples. You wish, between each, to live, but will thereby perish." Commodianus, Instruct. 24, 11-14. What ! do you wish to be half Jew, half heathen ? ^ But you go to those from whom you can learn nothing ; You leave their doors and go thence to idols. Ask what is the first precept in the Law. . Of God's precepts they narrate to you only the marvellous." Commodianus, Instruct. 37, 1-ia. 16 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. II. During the whole period when Jews exercised an in- fluence at Rome, even when most favored, there is no evidence that they sought or held office. Of this the probable explanation is, that official position would have brought them into such contact with idolatry as was re- pugnant to their religious views. The same repugnance induced many Christians to avoid and condemn office- holding. The political importance of the Jews inside of Italy must have been owing almost solely to their influence on the popular mind, — a remark which is less true of their position in Asia. There it is evident that they sometimes held office, for in Caesarea, where the majority of the population were heathen, the city government was, during a part of Nero's reign, in the hands of the Jews. It was transferred to the heathens just before the war broke out.35 CHAPTER II. CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. § I. Chief Causes. The causes of Jewish influence upon heathens admit of division into two classes. The main ones will be pre- sented in this section, leaving the secondary and perhaps doubtful ones for subsequent consideration. Jewish views of God and of religious duties, especially as advocated by the thoughtfully liberal, commended themselves infinitely more to common sense and moral sense than did those of heathens. These views of God encouraged right effort and strengthened conscience, so that the character of Jews and their converts was ele- vated to a higher average than that of heathens. The points of difference between the two systems and their followers claim attention seriatim. 35 See Appendix, Note I. foot-note 3. §1.1.] CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 17 1. Judaism alone, among religions on earth prior to Christianity, taught the existence of A Divine Being WHO TOOK INTEREST IN THE MORAL EDUCATION OF MANKIND. This Being was represented as supreme in power, wisdom, and goodness ; as having, because of his interest in man, made a revelation,1 which was addressed to his moral sense.2 1 Very ignorant and debased tribes or nations may have no thought on the object of man's existence, nor any desire beyond the supply of daily gratifications ; but in the Roman Empire, when Judaism was spreading, there must in all classes have been thoughtful and cultivated persons with deeper wants. Such persons would thankfully receive and examine the claims of Judaism. To use the language of another: "It is not true, . . . that intellectual weakness most stands in need of religion, or is most fitted to feel the need of it ; but it is intellectual strength. I hold no truth to be more certain than this, that every mind, in propor- tion to its real development and expansion, is dark, is disproportioned, and unhappy, without religion. If in this life alone it has hope, it is of all minds the most miserable." — Dewey, Works, 1, 278. "Human- ity, in fine, and especially in its growing cultivation, is too hard a lot, it appears to me, if God has not opened for it the fountains of revelation." — Dewey, Works, 3, 256. In this connection a fact calls for earnest consideration ; namely, that no community, destitute of a belief in revelation, has ever believed in a Moral Ruler of the universe. 2 If the ceremonial law — concerning which some remarks occur in the next section — be regarded as an original part of Judaism, a part of the revelation made to Moses, then that revelation, though addressed to the moral sense, was not exclusively so addressed. According^, as we come to one or a different conclusion on this subject, the following remarks concerning Christianity will appear partially or fully applicable to Judaism : " I ask you to consider on what principle of human nature the Christian revelation is intended to bear. ... It was plainly not given to enrich the intellect by teaching philosophy, or to perfect the imagination and tasto by furnishing sublime and beautiful models of composition. It was not meant to give sagacity in public life, or skill and invention in common affairs. It was undoubtedly designed to de- velop all these faculties, but secondarily, and through its influence on a higher principle. It addresses itself primarily, and is especially adapted, to the moral power in man. ... Is there a foundation in the moral principle tor peculiar interpositions in its behalf ? I affirm that there is. B 18 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. II. Heathenism had a multitude of discordant deities, not one of whom was supposed to have shown interest in man's moral improvement or moral encouragement. Their alleged communications to men, however frequent, were never upon moral topics,3 nor were questions in morality, so far as records exist, ever addressed to their oracles.4 Their own characters as depicted, not merely I affirm that a broad distinction exists between our moral nature and our other capacities. Conscience is the supreme power within us. . . . All our other powers become useless and worse, than useless, unless con- trolled by the principle of duty." — Charming, Works, 3, 335, 336. 3 Omens were deemed lucky or unlucky. They betokened divine favor or disfavor, success or its opposite, to a journey or voyage ; to a military expedition or battle ; to a purchase or a marriage or to a public meeting. If resort were ever had to them as a means of deter- mining uprightness towards our fellows, I have been unable to find an instance of it. Compare notes 13 and 14. Cicero says, or makes one of his speakers say: "All mortals hold that they receive from the gods external advantages, vineyards, grain-fields, olive groves, productiveness of grain and fruit ; in fine, every advantage and convenience of life. But no one ever at- tributed [human] virtue to a divine power, as if it had been received." De Nat. Deorum. 3, 36. The connection fairly implies not only that the gods do not confer virtue, but that they do not aid us in its attain- ment. Compare Plutarch, close of second citation in Ch. X. note 82, and see Ch. VIII. note 126. Seneca says : "What I have found in Athenodorus is true, ' Know that you will then be free from all [improper] desires when you shall have reached that point that you shall ask nothing of [any'] god except what you can ask openly.' For now how great is the madness of mortals ! They whisper most disgraceful vows to the gods. If any one approaches to listen they become silent, and what they are unwilling that [a] man should know they narrate to [a] god." — Epist. 10, 4, 5. Compare in Ch. X. note 53, what Lainprias puts into the mouth of Didymus. 4 Compare on this subject foot-note 53 of Ch. X. Plato, whether or not influenced by the teachings of Judaism, rejected the prevalent ideas of divine immorality and injustice. From him, if from any one, we might expect an appeal to oracles on topics of morality. Yet in his model republic the questions to be laid before the chief of oracles are merely ritual. " To the Delphian Apollo, however, there remains the GREATEST, NOBLEST, AND MOST IMPORTANT ( !) of legal institutions, . . . § I. 1.] CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 19 by tradition and popular belief,5 but by some intelligent men, would have rendered them unfit associates in a decent family.6 They were thought willing to favor vice and crime when sufficiently paid for it, and wrong-doers the erection of temples, sacrifices and other services to the gods, demons, and heroes ; likewise the rites of the dead and what other ceremonies should he gone through, with a view to their propitiation. . . . Nor wTould we employ any other interpreter than that of the country, . . . this god being the natural interpreter to all men about such matters." — Plato, Re-public, 4, 5, Bonn's trans. 2, 111. (Ast, 4, 208.) 5 In judging what views of the gods were most prevalent, the state- ments of tradition and of the poets are important, because they were the chief source of popular instruction touching the divine character. These were unworthy, or vile. Plato (Republic, 2, 17, in Bohn 2, 59, and Ast 4, 112) proposes that in his model republic no one shall be allowed to narrate them either in allegory or otherwise, and that poets shall be "COMPELLED," dvayKaareov, to teach otherwise. Again, in hymns to the gods, we should expect less levity than in other poetic compositions. Yet these, as any one by reading them can find, are destitute of moral conceptions, and often positively vicious. In Bohn's translation of Homer, The Odyssey, etc., pp. 349-426, more than thirty such hymns will be found. The writings of Horace (Odes, 1, 10, 21, 30, 31, 35 ; 2, 10 ; 3, 3, 11, 18, 22, 25, 26 ; 4, l, 2, (;) furnish other speci- mens. The Hymn of Cleanthes, belonging to a different literature, will be mentioned in the next chapter. 6 " There is a treatise of Servius Sulpitius, a prominent man [entitled] Quamobrcm mensa linquenda non sit, ' What Events forbid leav- ing the Table.' . . . They who believe the gods to be present in all our concerns at every hour have instituted these rules, and have accord- ingly handed down [to us] that the gods were to be pacified even by our vices." — Pliny, Nat. Hist. 28, 5, 4, 5. Compare touching Pliny's position, Ch. I. note 23. Tacitus, alluding, as it would seem, to the earthquakes in Campania, the eruption of Vesuvius, and the civil broils and conflagrations of Rome, remarks: "Never has it been made manifest by more fearful destructions of the Roman people, nor by more reliable proofs, that the gods do not care for our security but for [their own] revenge." — Tacitus, Hist. 1, 3. Elsewhere, the same writer, after narrating, with no expres- sion of mistrust, a silly fabrication concerning Tiberius and an astrolo- ger, proceeds : " But when I hear such and similar things, my judgment is in doubt whether mortal affairs are determined by fate and immutable 20 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. II. sought their co-operation in misdeeds. If a man of thought and culture discarded tradition, there remained no ground on which to believe the existence of any speci- fied deity in the catalogue.7 If he observed evidence of design in the universe or its management, this agreed with Jewish teaching, — with the idea of one God rather than with the heathen conception of many, with the belief in a Creator, rather than in gods born since the world existed. Weak-minded persons might dread the heathen deities, and conservative politicians might be eloquent or grandil- oquent over the " national " gods, but respect for such beings was out of the question. 2. If we now consider Beligious Duties, we shall find between heathens and Jews a difference equally marked. The weekly services at the Jewish synagogue included teachings concerning God and human duty.8 necessity, or by chance. Since [on this point] you will find the wisest ancients, as well as their imitators [that is, the Unquestionably Or- thodox according to aristocratic conservatism], differing from each other ; many of them holding ' that the gods care nothing for our be- ginning, our end, nor, in fine, for men ; that, therefore, very frequently misfortune attends the good and prosperity the worse.' Others think, on the contrary, (?) that things are in accordance with fate. . . . The major- ity of mortals have not given up the opinion that at each one's birth his futurity is determined." — Tacitus, Annals, 6, 22. In the foregoing an immutable fate seems to be regarded as the opposite of divine indifference towards mortals. Compare in Ch. X. iv. 10, quotation by Plutarch from the Iliad, 24, lines 525, 526, and also his first quotation from Euripides. 7 After the above was written, 1 noticed the following : "As respects their existence and care for us, we neither know nor have heard of them otherwise than from traditions and from the poets who write their genealogies; and these very persons tell us that they are to be moved and persuaded by sacrifices and propitiatory vows and offerings ; — both of which [namely, their existence and alleged character] we are to be- lieve, or neither." — Plato, Republic, 2, g, Bohn's trans. These re- marks are put by Plato into the mouth of an objector. 8 The earliest Christian assemblies copied from the synagogue fheir method of conducting religious meetings. In fact the more Jewish Christians must frequently have worshipped with the non-Christian §1.2.] CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 21 These services must have been imperfect, for they were conducted by human beings, yet the heathen who entered when a thoughtful Jew was reading, might listen to views which the range of heathen literature nowhere presented, — to the idea that God was to be served by justice and kindness towards our fellows, and by main- taining a right frame of mind ; 9 that this was the service Jews in the same place of gathering. Any decided difference in the method of conducting such meetings would have occasioned disagree- ments, and left obvious traces. 9 "What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly before thy God ? " — Micah, 6, 8. Compare Deut. 10, 12. "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest. And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of the vineyard ; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger : I am the Lord your God. " Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another. And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God : I am the Lord. " Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morn- ing. Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but shalt fear thy God : I am the Lord. " Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment ; thou shalt not [in giv- ing judgment] respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty, but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor. Thou shalt not go up or down as a tale-bearer among thy people ; neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor : I am the Lord. " Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart ; [yet] thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord.— Leviticus, 19, 9-18. "Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of the old man, and fear thy God : I am the Lord. "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But THE STRANGER THAT DWELLETH WITH YOU SHALL BE UNTO YOU AS ONE BORN AMONG YOU, AND THOU SHALT LOVE HIM AS THYSELF ; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt : I am the Lord your God. "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, 22 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. II. which he most desired. If the heathen listened to a ju- diciously selected psalm or hymn, he heard what might strengthen moral purpose, quicken right affections, or aid or in measures. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hiii shall ye have ; I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them ; I am the Lord." — Leviticus, 19, 32-37. " The Lord your God . . . regardeth not persons nor taketh reward. He executes judgment for the fatherless and widow and loveth the STRANGER. . . . LOVE YE THEREFORE THE STRANGER." — Deut. 10, 17-10. " Hear ye the word of Jehovah, ye princes of Sodom! Give ear to the instruction of our God, ye people of Gomorrah ! What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices ? saith Jehovah ; I am satiated with burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts, In the blood of bullocks and of lambs and of goats I have no delight. ■ • • • • Put away your evil doings from before mine eyes ; Cease to do evil ; Learn to do well ; Seek justice ; relieve the oppressed ; Defend the fatherless ; plead for the widow." Isaiah., 1, 10-18, Noyes's Translation. " Hear, 0 my people, and I will speak! • • ■ • I will take no bullock from thy house, Nor he-goat from thy folds ; • • • • Do I eat the flesh of bulls, Or drink the blood of goats ? Offer to God thanksgiving, And pay thy vows to the Most High! • • • • "And to the wicked God saith, To what purpose dost thou talk of my statutes ? And why hast thou my laws upon thy lips ? Thou, who hatest instruction And castest my words behind thee!" Ps. 50, 7 - 17, Noyes's Translation. " How long will ye judge unjustly, And favor the cause of the wicked ? Defend the poor and the fatherless ; Do justice to the wretched and the needy! Deliver the poor and the destitute ; Save them from the hand of the wicked J " Ps. 82, 2-4, N&yes's Translation. §1.2.] CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 23 devout aspirations.10 Heathen literature contained noth- ing which resembled it. 10 " ^he Lor(i js merciful and kind, Slow to anger and rich in mercy." Ps. 103, 8, Noyes's Translation. " Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help ; • • • • • Who keepeth truth forever ; Who executeth judgment for the oppressed ; Who giveth food to the hungry. The Lord setteth free the prisoners ; The Lord openeth the eyes of the blind ; The Lord raiseth up them that are bowed down ; The Lord loveth the righteous ; The Lord preserveth the strangers ; He relieveth the fatherless and the widow ; But the way of the wicked he maketh crooked." Ps. 146, 5-9, Noyes's Translation. u The earth is the Lord's, and all that is therein ; The world, and they who inhabit it. For he hath founded it upon the seas, And established it upon the floods. Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord ? And who shall stand in his holy place ? He that hath clean hands and a pure heart ; Who hath not inclined his soul to falsehood, Nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive a blessing from the Lord, And favor from the God of his salvation." Ps. 24, 1-5, Noyes's Translation. "Sing unto the Lord, 0 ye his servants! And praise his holy name ! For his anger endureth but a moment, But his favor through life ; In the evening sorrow may be a guest, But joy cometh in the morning." Ps. 30, 4, 5, Noyes's Translation. " Teach me, 0 Lord ! the way of thy statutes, That I may keep it to the end ! Give me understanding, that I may keep thy law ; That I may observe it with my whole heart! " Ps. 119, 33, 34, Noyes's Translation. "May we fall into the Lord's hands And not into the hands of men. For in like measure with his greatness So also is his compassion." Sirach, 2, ia 24 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. II. Of course, a Jew who deemed ceremonial observances essential might present such views of religion as would repel nearly all heathens. He and the class to whom he belonged would make few converts or none, whilst those who taught monotheism and morality as the only es- sentials n would make many. This might and probably did lead to separate religious assemblies,12 the heathens being thus brought into contact with the more liberal Jews. If a heathen were intelligent enough to study Jewish lit- erature, he could hardly fail to perceive that almost every book which it contained treated more or less of moral duties. He might be perplexed by the stress some- times laid on ceremonial observances ; yet if these were regarded by his teachers as inapplicable to Gentiles, as specially enjoined upon Jews for reasons already buried 11 In the Sibylline Oracles (2, 50, 51, quoted in the Appendix, Note A, § VIII.) God's rewards are promised, " even to Gentile foreigners Who live righteously and know one God." A non-Christian Jew is quoted in one of the gospels as saying, "We know, that ... if any one be a Monotheist and do his will, such a one God listens to." — John, 9, 31. The commendation of Cornelius, uttered to a Christian Jew (Acts, 10, 2-:), is, that "he is a just (or right-dealing) man, and a Fearer-of-God. " — Peter, though needing a miracle to give him confidence, endorses the view of the non-ritualists: " In every ?6vei Gentile community the Fearer-of-God, who does rightly, is accepted by him."— Acts, 10, 35. "Hear this sole conclusion of reason, 'Fear God and keep his commandments,' since every man should do this." — Ecc. 12, 13. See also Micah, 6, 8, quoted in note 9. On the meaning of the words translated "Monotheist" and "Fearer-of-God" see Appendix, Note B, § I. Nos. 2 and 11. The non-ritualists probably defended their position as did some of the early Christians, by alleging that Enoch, Noah, and others had pleased God without observing the ritual law, which could not therefore be necessary unless for descendants of Abraham. Compare on this subject Underworld Mission, pp. 8, 12. 12 Synagogues are mentioned (Acts, 6, 9) of Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians, Cilicians, and Asians — that is, denizens of the small province called Asia — as existing at Jerusalem. Difference of language may have contributed towards this, but difference of views and habits was probably its chief cause. § I. 2.] CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 25 in a remote antiquity, they would present less difficulty to him. If the same man examined what Heathenism taught for religious duties, he found nothing but rites, cere- monies, and augury. Instruction, whether mental or moral, in connection with religious services, was un- known.13 Much of what passed among heathens for practical religion — namely, augury or divination — he would find to be merelv fortune-tellm"- under another name,14 while other rites and ceremonies were mainly directed towards appeasing a not very good-tempered race of beings,15 but were utterly disconnected from thoughts of right behavior between man and man. Even if he examined the one or two exceptional heathen writers, who attributed to the gods a better character than the popular one, yet he would find religious duties treated as having no connection with morality 16 or with human improvement. is " we j0 not hear, either in Greece or at Rome, of any class of priests on whom it was incumbent to instruct the people respecting the nature and principles of religion. Of preaching there is not the slightest trace. Religion with the ancients was a thing which was handed down by tradition, . . . and consisted in the proper performance of certain rites and ceremonies. It was respecting these external forms alone that the pontiffs were obliged to give instructions to those who consulted them." — Smith, Did. of Antiq. 997, 9P8, art. Sacerdos. Compare note 3. 14 Xenophon represents Socrates as calling the attention of an au- ditor to this benevolent communicativeness of the deities. "If we are unable to foreknow touching future events what [course of action] will be advantageous, they [the gods] assist us in this [by] telling to inquir- ers, through divination, how things will turn out, and [by] teaching how thjy will eventuate most favorably."— Xenophon, Memorabilia, 4, 3, 12. Compare argument of Quintus Cicero in Ch. III. note 67. 15 In Ch. VIII. § iv. will be quoted from Tacitus, Annals, 11, 15, action by the Senate, and a communication from the Emperor, both of which imply prevalent opinion, that rites were for the pacification of dissatisfied deities. See also the comments by Tacitus (Hist. 5, 13, quoted hereafter in Ch. X. note 96) on Jewish obduracy in not attend- ing to this view of religion, and compare it with his views of the gods already given in note 6 of the present chapter. 10 Views of Xenophon and Plato concerning the gods will be found in 2 26 JUDAISM AT HOME. [CH. II. 3. In proportion to human development is the desire for a future existence, the fitting sequel of our present the Appendix, Note K, § I. 4, and § II. 11. Xenophon in his Memo- rabilia, 4, 6, 2 -J, makes Socrates explain that piety, or practical rec- ognition of the gods, evaepeia, consists in giving the gods due honor, that is, as he is made to say, in giving them what the laws decree to them, and in the manner prescribed by the laws ; and although justice, wisdom, goodness, beauty, courage, monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, democracy, and plutocracy are treated in the same chapter, and temper- ance in the preceding one, yet none of them are connected with or treated as religious duties. Elsewhere Xenophon puts into the mouth of Socrates the following statement : "You see that the god at Delphi, when any one asks him how he may do a pleasure to the gods, answers, ' Conformably to the law of [your] city.' But the law, everywhere doubtless, is, that the gods are to be pleased by means of sacrifices in proportion to [each one's] property. How then can any one honor the gods in a more beautiful and pious way than by doing as they themselves command?" — Memorabilia, 4, 3, 1G. Else- where, again, Xenophon states (Memorabilia, 1, 3, 1) that Socrates "re- garded as superserviceable and vain those who did otherwise," that is, who devoted to the gods more than what the law required. Language of this kind is incompatible with the belief, that a right life was deemed the best method of pleasing the gods. Plato, in his Laics, gives his ideal of religious services. " It is for us to regulate and lay down by law, in conjunction with the Delphic oracles, festivals, [and] what [are to be] the sacrifices and the divinities, to whom it will be bet- ter and more advisable for the state to sacrifice, and at what time and how many in number. . . . For the law will say that there are twelve festivals to the twelve gods, from whom each tribe has its name, and that persons are to make, to each of these, monthly sacrifices, and dances, and musical contests, and to assign the gymnastic exercises, in a manner befitting both to the gods themselves and the several seasons ; and to distribute the female festivals likewise, such as ought to be separated from the men, and such as ought not." — Laws, 8, 1, Bonn's trans. 5, 312, 313. (Ast's edit. 7,90, 100). Again, "Let this law be established, that Oewv . . . iepd altars to, or statues of the gods must not be owned in private dwellings. If any one owns separate ones from the public, and has private rites apart from the public, ... let whoever becomes cognizant thereof announce it to the guardians of the laws, and let them com- mand him to remove his sacred objects to the [locality used by the] public. If they cannot persuade, let them punish him until [the ob- § I. 4.] CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 27 one.17 If the universe have a Moral Ruler, the conclu- sion would seem almost inevitable that such a life is in store for us. If no such Euler exist, the hope of such a life is vain. The propagandists of Judaism in the Roman Empire believed in a future existence. Thought- ful Gentiles, if unhindered by prejudice, would be pre- disposed towards a faith which gave them hope. 4. To infer that the average character of Jews sur- passed that of heathens is merely to assume that the laws of human nature were not, in their case, suspended. Those who can look up to, commune with, and derive encouragement from superior benevolence and moral worth, whether human or divine, must, as a rule, rise above those who have no such privilege.18 The presence jects] shall be removed." — Laws, 10, 15 (Ast's edit. 7, 29S ; Bolm'a trans. 5, 43-1). It is insupposable that Plato deemed religious ser- vices an aid to moral sense. Compare note 4. 17 A future state, unadapted to human improvement or happiness, would lack attraction, and might be repulsive. The Buddhist view of wearisome transmigrations into the bodies of animals and reptiles is not merely destitute of evidence, but, if testimony can be credited, has en- gendered a desire for annihilation. 18 In the third century before the Christian era, if not earlier, Jesus, the son of Sirach, wrote or compiled a work which, at a later date, his grandson of the same name translated into Greek. This book, sometimes called Wisdom, sometimes Ecclcsiasticus, contains passages which, when compared with anything then extant in heathenism, can only be attributed to the silent influence of monotheism. "Forgive your neighbor his wrong-doing, and then at your request shall your own sins be released. Does a mortal cherish anger against a mortal and yet seek healing from the Lord ? Has he no compassion on a mortal like himself ? and does he petition touching his own sins ? " — Sirach, 28, 2-4. "Lend to your neighbor in the time of his need, and [if you have borrowed] repay your neighbor punctually. . . . Many treat a loan as something which they have found. . . . Many because of [such] wickedness refuse [to lend], . . . but be forbearing towards one in « humble circumstances, . . . [risk to] lose silver for a brother and friend, . . . you are placing your treasure according to commands of the Most High, and it shall profit you more than the [stipulated] gold-piece." — Sirach, 29, 2-n. 23 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. II. or absence, moreover, of rigidly enforced accountability, makes, in the camps and workshops, in the public de- partments and corporate institutions of a country, the difference between order and disorder, whether of a moral or business kind. The sense of accountability to an all-seeing eye, felt by sincere Jews, for wrong clone, or good left undone, must have strengthened their con- sciences, while the total, or almost total, absence among heathens of any such sense must have produced its natural results upon their characters. Further, a man will devote more attention to an earthly home which he owns than to one which he occupies but for a year. He will strive harder for a personal growth, if permanent, than if it pass away with this life. History justifies the foregoing conclusions. The Jews were indeed absent from political offices or occupations, and therefore scantily mentioned in political history. The Roman aristocracy, moreover, largely in control of Italian literary marts, were unlikely to perpetuate favorable men- tion of religionists whom they detested. Yet despite these difficulties reliable evidence has been left us. The literature which finds circulation in a community is no slight test of its character. Jewish writings treat moral laws, as if their binding character required no ar- gument.19 This is not the tone — certainly not the pre- vailing one — of heathens, unless of such as had been influenced by monotheism.20 19 See quoted in the Appendix, Note A, § vui., lines from two Jewish documents which have been intermingled. Moral positions are there affirmed, not argued. Writers on moral topics in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha share largely in this peculiarity. 20 A writer such as Dio Chrysostom, hereafter to be mentioned (Ch. X. § iv. ), was formed more by monotheistic than by heathen influences. Isoc- rates, b. c. 436-338 (who, however, had lived in Chios, and was likely therefore to have come in contact with monotheism), is a favorable speci- men of a heathen moralist. In the Ad Demonicum, his arguments are seldom longer than a sentence. Yet they appeal to various sentiments rather than to moral sense, and among the positions to be maintained, one or two of the most striking are almost nullified by a subsequent one. ' ' You will be especially esteemed, if you do not do what you would find § I. 4.] CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 29 Jewish phraseology has, what secular Greek and Lat- in, prior to monotheistic influence, lacked, — a term for conscience.21 This does not imply that heathens were de- void of moral sense, but it does indicate that conscience, or moral sense, had no recognized standing among them, else necessity would have compelled the invention of some term to express it. The chief moralists among heathens were the Stoics, but they, as will appear in the next chapter, were but an offshoot from that monotheism which the Jews were spreading. Jews and their converts must have measured them- selves by a higher standard of morality than that estab- lished among heathens. This is evinced by their ideas of practical monotheism.22 fault with in others." — Ad Demon, in Grcec. Majora, 1, 155. " Exercise self-control [touching] all those things, — gain, anger, pleasure, grief, — whereby it is base that the soul should be mastered. But you will be such [a man] . . . if, when angry, you behave towards offenders as you would deem proper that others should behave towards yourself when you offend." — Ad Demon, in Grcec. Majora, 1, 156. Subsequently the rule is laid down : " Think it equally disgraceful to be outdone by enemies in ill offices, or by friends in benefits.'' — Ad Demon, in Grcec. Majora, 1,157. This same rule is put by Xenophou into the mouth of Socrates : " You have known that it is a manly virtue to exceed friends in kind offices and enemies in ill ones." — Memorabil. 2, 6, 35. 21 The Jews used (xweidvats in the sense of conscience. In secular Greek it meant merely consciousness of anything whatever. Passow gives conscience as a second definition, but supports it only by reference to quotations in Stobseus, a writer as late as the tenth century. The Lexicon of Facciolati and Forcellini gives conscience as one meaning of the Latin conscientia, but the references — not in all cases satisfactory — do not sus- tain any such meaning prior to the date of monotheistic influences at Eome. 22 See in the Appendix, under Note B, § i. Nos. 4, 5, 6, the meaning of Practical Monotheism. The same can be fairly inferred from advice of Paul : "I wish . . . that the women adorn themselves in neat attire, modestly and discreetly ; not with braids, or gold, or pearls, or costly clothing, but — as becomes women who advocate 8eoo-^(3eia monotheism — with good works." — 1 Tim. 2, 8-10. In Proverbs, 8, 13, likewise, we have it stated: "Monotheism (06/3os Kvpiov) hates injustice." And by 30 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. II. We have the testimony of Cicero — whose political prejudices were against the Jews — that the section of the republic wherein reason and industry were of most account was one in which we know Jewish influence to have been especially strong.23 Tacitus, a detainer of Judaism, testifies unintentionally to the fact, that in Syria — where the heathen religion had been rooted out by Jewish teaching — military force was superfluous and industry prosperous.24 Pliny, in his Panegyric, while stating that indecencies, customary at heathen entertainments, were excluded from Trajan's table, enables us to perceive that Jewish enter- tainments were conducted yet more strictly than the emperor's.25 The brutalizing and otherwise demoralizing public games of heathenism were regarded by Jews and recognized Sirach, 1, 14, "Monotheism ((pofie'iadai tov Oebv) is the first step in [moral] wisdom." Compare views of wisdom inCh. III. note 25. On the words translated "monotheism," see Appendix, Note B, § I. Nos. 1 and 11. 23 Cicero wrote to his brother Quintus, who was proprietor of Asia, which province in Roman phraseology meant the western and central parts of Asia Minor. In this somewhat long letter he says : "You are not managing that portion of the republic in which chance is ruler, but [that] IN WHICH REASON AND DILIGENCE EFFECT MOST. . . . To you is given the utmost peace, the utmost tranquillity, in such degree as might overcome a sleepy governor or delight a vigilant one." — Cicero, Ad Fra- trem, 1, i ; Epist. 3, 529, 5S0. 24 Tacitus tells us (An. 13, 35) that the troops in Syria had even for- gotten bow to construct a camp, and (An. 15, 26) that troops diminished in numbers and broken in strength by hard service were sent thither to recruit ; also ( Vit. Agric. 40) that Syria was reserved for eminent per- sons, a sure evidence of its wealth. 25 "For neither [on the one. hand] do the seclusive peculiarities of Foreign Superstition, nor [on the other] does obscene buffoonery attend the Prince's table, but benignant prompting, refined jests, respect for scholarship." — Pliny, Panegyric, 49, s. The term Foreign Superstition means Judaism, whether it does or does not include Christianity. On this subject of indecency at heathen entertainments, see extract from Pliny in Ch. X. note 61, and from Tacitus, in the same chapter, at the close of note 59. § i. 4.] CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 31 by heathens as essentially anti- Jewish.26 In fact after the contest became sharp between Judaism and Heathenism at Rome, such games were always most in vogue, when the patrician or anti-Jewish element was most unrestricted. The marriage relation must have been better observed among Jews than among heathens. The loose views and practice of the latter are well known.27 At Eome penal enactments existed against celibacy, and legal priv- ileges for parents of several children.28 Heathen writers complain of, or ridicule, the mutability of the married state.29 AVe do not find the same condition of things de- picted among Jews by their own moralists, or objected to 26 According to Josephus, when Herod the Great, in the time of Au- gustus, introduced games of this character into the city of Csesarea, the foreigners were delighted with them. "But to the natives it was an ob- vious overthrow of their honored customs. For it appeared plainly- heathenish to throw men to wild beasts as an amusement for a theatre- ful of human beings, and heathenish to exchange the divine ordinances (6e) nine gates, a wall and a front of the Temple covered with silver and gold, and mentions other lavish expense in which (Wars, 5, 5, 1) "all the sacred treasures replenished by tributes sent from the whole world to God " were during years or generations used up. At the outbreak of the war under Nero there were (see Appendix, Note I., foot-note 23) seventeen talents in the Temple treasury. 33 Josephus, in a passage {Antiq. 18, 3, 5) to which we must here- after recur, mentions a concerted plan by four men for imposing on Fulvia, a lady of rank at Rome, who had been converted to Judaism. She gave them purple and gold for the Temple, which they appropriated to their own use. Possibly Paul had such practices in mind when he wrote (Romans, 2, 22), "You abhorrer of idols, are you a Temple robber ? " 84 Our Saviour's words to the Temple traffickers are here apposite : "It 2* c 34 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. II. Even where no intentional dishonesty was surmised, a heathen might become indignant at exactions in the name of religion from women of his family,35 and lose pa- tience with importunity addressed to himself by such as mistook officious and objectless activity for pious Non-ritualist Jews, if consistent, disapproved these Temple offerings and the sacrifices to which a portion of them ministered.36 In their own synagogues, heathen listeners received a welcome. From the Temple they were excluded.37 Fortunately, but one such building was recog- nized by Jews. Even within it, we can learn from the widow and her two mites how religious feeling and self- sacrifice may dwell in proximity to avarice and fraud ; and a conversation between doctors and a child (Luke 2, 46) bears evidence that religious instruction had not been wholly displaced. Jerusalem was tainted by Temple practices, but the character of its inhabitants,38 little known to heathens is written, ' My house shall be a house of prayer,' but you have made it a ' robbers-cave.' " — Matthew, 21, 13. 35 Philo, in his treatise on the virtues and office of ambassadors, otherwise called, The Embassy to Cains, Ch. 40, mentions costly gifts contributed by Julia, the daughter of Augustus. 86 " 1 need not your sacrifice or libation, Neither polluted odor [of burnt offering] nor hateful blood." Sib. Or. 8, 390, 391. Compare Sibyl. Orac. 2, 82, 4, 27-20, in Appendix, Note A, § n. Part A, and § vm. The expulsion of Temple traffickers by Jesus (Matt. 21, 12 ; John, 2, 15) would have been resisted, unless many had condemned their doings. Stephen, the first Christian martyr, gave expression, doubtless (Acts, 7, 48), to the conviction of non-ritualists : " The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands." At this point his speech was evidently interrupted. The opinion cost him his life. 37 Inscriptions on its pillars (Josephus, Wars, 5, 5, 2) forbade en- trance to foreigners. 38 Jerusalem, ruled by an ecclesiastical aristocracy, and filled with a class (see Appendix, Note I., foot-notes 21, 23) brought thither by greed- iness, was a place where human selfishness, with its unwritten maxims, had overridden the teachings of Judaism. "Whoever swears by the temple may disregard his oath, but whoever swears by the gold of the § ii. 4.] CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 35 at a distance, cannot have materially interfered with the spread of Judaism. 3. The cause of Judaism at Borne, or wherever Eoman rule extended, was more or less intermixed with that of popular rights. Two reasons existed for this. The Senatorial party upheld the old religion, which was man- aged by the Senate.39 It also advocated established usages, on which patrician privileges rested.40 Judaism opposed paganism, and taught human rights. An alliance therefore naturally grew up between it and the popular party. This was better than any league with its opposite, yet its advantages were counterbalanced, at least in the city of Rome, by not a few disadvantages. Any alliance between religion and a political party not only exposes the former to blame for short-comings of the latter, but subjects the teachings of religion to perversion. Able politicians and fluent orators are not, as a rule, the best guides in matters of conscience. 4. The relative antiquity of Judaism and paganism was one of the points debated between advocates of the two religions, and also, at a later day, between Christians and heathens. More importance was attached to this discussion, because the aristocracy, anxious for their temple, must keep it. " — Matthew, 23, 16. "Whoever swears by the altar may disregard his oath, but whoever swears by the gift there- on must keep it." — Matt. 23, 18. If a man give to the temple (Matt. 15, 5 ; Mark, 7, ll) what is due to his parents, he is freed from aiding them ; a convenient maxim certainly for " temple-robbers," and disgust- ing, doubtless, to upright Jews. In their literature we find quite oppo- site maxims : " Not the power of the things sworn by, but the punish- ment appropriate to sinners follows up the transgression of wrong-doers." — Wisdom of Solomon, 14, 31. " You should not accustom your mouth to an oath." — Sirach, 23, 9. 39 " The gods of the Roman state were the gods of patricians alone." — Smith, Diet, of Antiq. p. 176, col. 2, art. Augur. Compare inCh. VII. note 35, Cicero's opinion that augury was kept up reipublicce causa for political reasons. The cause of " the republic " and of the Senate were, ui patrician language, identical. 40 The need of Delatores, or Prosecutors on Shares (see Appendix, Note C) was largely owing to patrician privileges. 36 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. II. political privileges, were zealous partisans of ancient usages.41 This controversy ignored the relative merits of the two systems, and assumed that most reverence was due to the older. Where the aristocracy was strongest, namely, at Rome, this dispute seems to have had most vigor. It nurtured fictitious reverence for antiquity, which, at one period, may have swayed some Gentiles into acceptance of Judaism rather than of Christian- ity.42 5. The monotheistic teaching, in the name of Sibylla, imposed upon the Senate in B. c. 76, and officially ac- cepted by that body, must in any controversy have proved very inconvenient to patrician conservatives.43 This is confirmed by their efforts, half a century later, to destroy or prevent perusal of it, and of subsequent pro- ductions under the same name. Whether these lines, professedly from Erythrre, gave much aid to the progress of monotheism, is a different question. Sincere men of reasonable ability may, in the then existing state of opinion, have deemed them inspired. Their teaching was, in most respects, superior to what could be found in heathen literature, and their violent suppression would increase the number of their advocates. Yet critical iudoments must have found much in them which be- trayed their real origin. The mistrust of such minds was no slight weight in the balance against Judaism, and the connection of its cause with a fraud must have im- paired its moral influence and facilitated misrepresenta- tion by its enemies.44 41 " You know the verse indited by a good poet, which is in every one's mouth : ' Rome, res Eomana, stands because of old-fashioned customs and men.'" — Marc Antonine, Letter of, in the Historice Augusta Scri])tores, p. 73, Leipsic edit. 1774 ; Avid. Cassius, Ch. 5. Cicero (Be Divinat. 2, 112, cited in Appendix, Note A, foot-note 99) supports, by ancestral custom, the idea that Sibylline books should be withdrawn from the people. The younger Pliny (Epist. 6, 34, quoted in Ch. X. note 108) cannot well have rested on aught save such custom. 42 See Juvenal, Satire 14, 06-106, cited in Ch. X. note 118. 43 For account of this fabrication, see Appendix, Note A, § II. 44 A work somewhat analogous in object to the Erythraean verses was the § II. 6.] CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 37 6. Another impediment to the moral and religious in- fluence of Judaism was, that some who professed or so-called Etruscan Teaching, unmentioned in history, and, therefore, probably too unimportant for enumeration above. It, or the extant portion of it, has been transmitted us in the Lexicon of Suidas. The most plausible date for its fabrication would be during the conservative reaction under Claudius, though it may have been a century earlier. The Emperor's proposal (Tac. An. 11, 15, hereafter quoted in Ch. VIII. § iv.) to obtain learned slaves from Etruria, might prompt, in some one of more ingenuity than principle, the idea that fabrication of Etruscan learning was not exclusively an imperial privilege, and that it might be made to teach Jewish equally as heathen ideas. Etruscan Teaching. " Etruria and Etrurians also called Tuscans : a skilled man among them wrote history. He said that the maker of all things, God, apportioned twelve thousand years on all his creations, and that these corresponded to the twelve, so-called o'l'kols tribes. " In the First thousand years he made the heaven and the earth. In the Second he made the firma- ment, this visible one which he called heaven. In the Third, the sea and all the waters in the earth. In the Fourth, those great lights, the sun and the moon and the stars. In the Fifth, all life of winged and creeping animals, and four- footed beasts in the air and on the earth and in the waters. Old Testament. " A thousand years, in thy sight, are as yesterday." — Ps. 90,4. [ ' ' One day is with the Lord as a thousand years." — 2 Pet. 3,8.] "God created the heaven and the earth . . . the First day. . . . God made the firmament . . . the Second day. . . . God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together, . . . the eve and morn were the Third day. . . . God made two great lights, . . . the stars also . . . the Fourth day. . . . God created ... all life of creep- ing things, which the waters forth . . . and every . . the Fifth day. And said, Let the earth bring forth . . . four-footed beasts and creepi ng th ings. [ This fifth day is from the Septuagint.] brought winged fowl 38 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. II. counterfeited a connection with it, made their living by Astrology and Soothsaying.45 In this direction they appear to have had a rivalry with the Egyptians,46 which In the Sixth, man. It seems, therefore, that the first six thousand years passed before the formation of man, and the race of men will continue for the other six thousand ; so that the whole time to the consummation will be twelve thousand." — Sui- das, Lex. 3, 510, art. Tvpp-qvia. God created man . . . the Sixth day." — Genesis, 1, l - 27. [" This (Gen. 2, 2) means that, in 6,000 years, the Lord God will bring all things to a conclusion." — Barnabas, Epist. 15.] " The [duration of the] world is divided into twelve parts." — 2 Esdras, 14, 11, Lat. Vers. 45 "They shall intensely suffer [unsatisfied desire], who for gain Shall basely turn soothsayers, prolonging [this] evil time, Who clothing themselves with the thick woolly skins of sheep, Pretend to be Hebrews, a race whose interpreters they are not, But prating talkers, gain-makers amid [our] sufferings. They change their course of life, yet shall they not persuade The Just, Who propitiate the all-illustrious God in their hearts." Sib. Or. 7, 132-138. The sheep-skin clothing of false prophets, mentioned also in Matthew, 7, l."-, was an imitation of clothing said to have been worn (see He- brews, 11, 37) by the persecuted prophets of earlier days. To change their course of life means to heathenize themselves. 46 Abraham, who it must be remembered was a Chaldaean, " communi- cated to them [the Egyptians] arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of astronomy ; for before Abraham came into Egypt they were un- acquainted with those parts of learning, for that science came from the Chaldaeans into Egypt." — Josephus, Antiq. 1,8, 2, Whiston's trans- lation. The elder Pliny, 30, 2, l, mentions Moses as, many years after Zoro- aster, the originator of one class of magicians. Josephus states concerning himself that "in the interpretation of dreams he was competent to compare what had been ambiguously stated by the Divinity, and was not unacquainted with the predictions of the Sacred Books, being himself a priest and the descendant of priests." — Wars, 3, 8, 3. Among the works attributed to Porphyry, the contemporary of Origen, is a life of Pythagoras, in which a Diogenes is quoted as authority for the statement, that " Pythagoras visited the Egyptians and Arabs and the § II. 6.] CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 39 must have lasted till the time of Marc Antonine.47 Their opponents at Rome speak of them in this respect, as in others, disparagingly,48 yet the identification of the terms Astrologer and Chaldaean would indicate that popular opinion assigned them a pre-eminence in this direction. Degrading, in a moral point of view, as this vocation Chaldseans and the Hebrews, from whom also he thoroughly learned the interpretation of dreams." — Forphyrius, De vita Pythagorce, 14, Am- sterdam edit. 1707 (appended to Iambliehus's Life of Pythagoras). "Originally the Assyrians, — that I may rest for authority on the earliest, — because of the magnitude of the plains where they dwelt, which opened the heavens to their inspection on all sides, observed the transits and motions of the stars. Taking note of these and of what [in after ex- perience] was signified by each, they transmitted their knowledge. In that nation the Chaldseans, so called, not from their profession, but from their tribal designation, are thought by long observation of the stars to have created a science, through which they can predict what will happen to each one and under what fate he was born. The Egyptians ar.e thought to have attained the same art during a lapse of time amounting to in- numerable ages." — Cicero, De Divinat. 1 (1), 2. 47 See Suidas, Lexicon, articles Arnuphis and Julian. The shower which relieved the army of Marc Antonine was by some attributed to the agency of Julian the Chaldaean, and by others to Arnuphis the Egyptian. 48 The poet Juvenal, who lived in the latter half of the first century, tells us, "The groves and shrines of the sacred fountain [of Capena] are allotted to Jews, whose whole furniture is a basket and some straw. Every tree is required to pay its hire to the people. The Camcenae are ejected and the grove is a beggar." — Satire 3, lines 11- 16. Elsewhere, after rep- resenting the Roman wives as willing to do and believe anything which an Egyptian priest may dictate, he adds, that when the priest is gone " a furtive [or trembling] Jewess, who has left her basket and straw, begs in her secret [or secret-loving] ear, ' She is an interpretess of the laws of the Jews, and a high-priestess of some tree, and a faithful medium of communication with the highest Heaven.' The wife fills her hand more sparingly. For a trifling sum a Jew will sell you any dreams which you may wish. Professing himself a soothsayer from Armenia or Commagene, he will, after examining the lungs of a newly killed dove, promise you a tender lover, or the large inheritance of a childless rich man. He inspects the hearts of chickens, and the entrails of a pup ; sometimes also of a boy." — Satire, 6, 5*2-552. This last remark will not diminish our esti- mate of Roman credulity, or of patrician misrepresentation. 40 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. III. must have been, it was one which Home assigned, under the name of Augury or Auspices, to her chief citizens, placing them, in this respect, on a par with the refuse of Judaism. 7. If the Jews were, as Josephus claims and as some other circumstances might indicate, the mechanics of the Eoman Empire, this would bring them largely in contact with their heathen neighbors, and give to those of them who were fitted for it an opportunity of making a favor- able impression by their skill, industry, and fidelity. Any such qualities as command respect would co-operate in diffusing their religious views. In fact Jewish habits of industry must have been partly due to Jewish religious views, to a sense of responsibility for the right use of time. 8. A negative advantage which the Jews possessed was, that nowhere outside of Judsea had their religion exclusive control of state power. It must largely, therefore, have escaped the perversions which a union of religious and secular authority is sure to entail. The limited extent to which religious and secular power were blended in the same Jewish hands at Alexandria proved unfavorable to religious sincerity. See Ch. V. § vin. and Ch. VIII. § ill. 3. CHAPTER III. JEWISH INFLUENCE ORIGINATES THE STOICS. § I. Greek Stoics. Allusion has already been made to Jewish influence on Greek culture, a subject to which we shall return in Ch. XIII. §§ I. iv. A striking evidence of it is the body of Gen- tile moralists whom it called into existence ; men among the most intelligent of their time in matters of jurispru- dence and natural science, and who, in spite of their defects, have deserved and received the esteem of subsequent ages. §i.] INFLUENCE ON THE GREEK STOICS. 41 Three centuries or more before the Christian era, Ju- daism was already strong enough in Egypt and Syria to claim political attention as an important element in soci- ety.1 The records of its history in Asia Minor at this date are scanty, but its strength there, two centuries later,2 implies that it must, on the seaboard at least, have commenced about as early and made nearly or quite as much progress as in the other two countries. Subsequently to its establishment in these countries, there grew up among heathens in Asia Minor, the islands belonging to it, and in Syria, a body of Greek teachers,3 who nominally taught monotheism. Their affinity to Ju- 1 In E. c. 332, when Alexandria, the commercial metropolis of Egypt, was founded, it was laid off in three sections, of which one was appor- tioned to the Jews (Smith, Diet, of Gcog. 1, 97, col. 1); and when Antioch, the capital of Syria, was founded in b. c. 300, equal rights of citizenship were given (Smith, Diet, of Gcog. 1, 14:5, col. 1) to Jews as to heathens. 2 See, in Ch. II. note 32, mention of contributions from Asia Minor to the Jewish Temple. 3 In Asia Minor and its islands were born : at Citium in Cyprus, Zeno the earlier and Persseus ; at Assos in Troas, Cleanthes ; at Soli in CM- cia (though his father was a resident of Tarsus), Chrysippus and one Athenodorus ; at Tarsus, Zeno the later, one Antipater, two, apparently named Athenodorus, and in this city was the residence of Archede- mus ; in the island of Chios, Aristo ; in the island of EJwdes, Pano- titis ; in Hierapolis, of Phrygia, Epictetus ; in Nicomcdia, of Bithynia, Arrian. In Syria, Posidonius was born at Apamea, though his residence, in mature life, was at Ehodes. One of the two Antipaters was born at Tyre. Diogenes, surnamed the Babylonian, was born at Seleucia on the Euphra- tes, adjacent to Syria on the east. A later Stoic, named Euphrates, is said by one writer to have been born at Tyre, and by another at Byzan- tium. The Greek population of Syria must have been much less numerous than that of Asia Minor. Its Syrian population, if inclined to monotheism , may have united with the Jews, or, if such men became Stoics, their language may have debarred Romans from acquaintance with their views. Chseremon, librarian at Alexandria in the first half of the first century, was a Stoic. "Where he originated seems unknown. The foregoing list comprises all prominent Greek Stoics and some additional ones. 42 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. III. daism was such, that a Pharisee could use them to illus- trate the views of his sect ; a heathen could ridicule them as believing in a circumcised God, and among their Roman imitators we find the belief in a King from the East,4 while their views were so antagonistic to heathen ones as to be called Paradoxes. Three of these men,5 Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus, emigrated at different times to Athens, where the first mentioned taught in a Stoa or porch. This caused advocates of that system in Europe, and after- wards in Asia, to be called Stoics, or Disciples of the Porch. Other advocates of the system came at still later dates to Athens. In turning to the views and phraseology of the Stoics they need, as an aid to scrutiny, a comparison seriatim with those of the Jews. But, unless on points where a common origin might be surmised, the evidence of Stoi- cism being an imitation of Judaism, increases in, at least, geometrical ratio with each new instance of its having borrowed therefrom. The Jews believed in one Supreme Being who created and controlled the universe. The Stoics professed a like 4 "At nineteen years of age I entered upon citizenship, adhering to the sect of Pharisees, which is similar to the one called, among Greeks, Stoic." — Josephus, Life, §2. " The God of the Stoics is round (as Varro says), devoid of head, and circumcised." — De Morte Claudii Ludus, 8; Seneca, Opp. Philos. 2, -280. This was written about a. d. 54, though not by Seneca,, who would not have ridiculed his own sect. See also in Note A, footnote 96, the belief of Cicero's brother in a king from the East. On a spherical God see Indirect Testimony, Ch. II. note 17. 5 Zeno was the earliest who made these views known in Europe, and has been commonly regarded as founder of the system. According to Smith's Biog. Diet. {art. Cleanthes), he died in b. c. 263, but according to the same work, 3, 1314, col. 1, and to Diogenes Laertius (Zeno, 8) he was active in the one hundred and thirtieth Olympiad, as late, therefore, as b. c. 191. Cleanthes was born, according to Smith's Biog. Diet. (art. Cleanthes) about b. c. 300. Chrysippus, according to the same work (art. Clirysippus), was born in b. c. 280, but according to Diogenes Laer- tius, (Chrysippus, 7), he died in the one hundred and forty-third Olym- piad, as late, therefore, as b. c. 139, after living seventy- three years. This would place his birth about b. c. 212 or b. c. 213. §1.] INFLUENCE ON THE GREEK STOICS. 43 belief, though some of them explained it pantheisti- cally.6 The Jews believed that the heathen deities were doomed to perish. So did the Stoics.7 The Jews taught that heathen temples should be avoided. The Stoics also decried temples.8 The Jews maintained that efforts to represent the Di- vine Nature by images were absurd.9 So did the Stoics,10 differing therein from other heathens. Such Greeks and Romans as believed in any gods seem to have attrib- uted to them a human form.11 6 "In physics they (the Stoics) inclined to pantheism." — New Am. Cyclopaedia, art. Stoics. Compare extracts from Seneca in note 61 of this chapter. 7 "We know that the Stoics, . . . holding to one immortal and inde- structible God, think that the others have been born, and will perish." — Lamprias, De Orac. Defect, 19 ; Plutarch's Works, 7, 654. See also close of citation in note 18. 8 " Blessed among men shall they on earth be . . . who reject all temples which they see." — Sib. Or. 4, 24-27. " Men of Athens . . . God dwelleth not in temples made with hands." — Acts, 17, 22 - 24. Compare Acts, 7, 48, quoted in Ch. II. note 36. "It is a dogma of Zeno NOT to build temples of the gods, for a temple has little worth and is not holy." — Plutarch, de Stoic. Repugnant. 6, Opp. 10, 280, edit. Eeiske. " Zeno, founder of the Stoic sect, in his book on Civil Polity, says that temples and images sjiould not be made, for that nothing artificial was worthy of the gods, [possibly Clement substituted tQjv detbv, of the gods, for rod deiov, of the divine nature], and he did not fear to write these views in the following words : ' The building of temples is needless, for a temple has little worth, and wTe should not deem anything holy [in the sense of liable to pollution by acts devoid of immorality. Compare George Campbell, Dissertat. 6, Part 4], for that no [mere] work of builders and mechanics wTas of great worth and holy.'" — Clem. Alex. Strom. 5, 77. 9 " No man can make a god like to himself." — Wisd. of Sol. 15, 16. "We should not think the Divine Nature like to gold or silver or stone." — Acts, 17, 29. 10 " Not from gold, not from silver ; from this material no image can be devised resembling God." — Seneca, Epist. 31, 10. 11 "Concerning the form [of the gods] partly nature admonishes, partly reason teaches us ; for we all of every nation have naturally no 44 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. III. Jews, excepting Sadducees, taught a resurrection. The Stoics did the same.12 Jews taught a heavenly city. The Stoics imitated their phraseology.13 The Jews, at least in Asia Minor, taught, though at how early a date cannot easily be determined, a future conflagration of the world,14 which was to inaugurate a other form for the gods than the human one. For what other form ever occurs to a man, either awake or asleep. . . . Reason declares the same, for since it seems appropriate that the most excellent nature [namely, that of the gods], either because it is blessed or because it is perpetual, should also be the most beautiful. . . . What figure, what appearance, can be more beautiful than the human. . . . Nor does reason exist save in the human figure. We must confess that THE gods are in hu- man form." — Cicero, De Nat. Deorum, 1 (18), 46-48. 12 Clement of Alexandria mentions the Conflagration "at which [time] (the Stoics) affirm that each individual will rise again." — Strom. 5,9. Compare Strom. 5,106. "Chrysippus, . . . speaking concern- ing the renovation of the world, introduces the following : . . . l It is manifest that nothing is impossible [with God ?], and that we, after death, will again, after a lapse of time, be placed in the same ), 5 ; De Leg. 1 (22), 58. Seneca, in his Epist. 89, 7, defines it as a " Zeal for Virtue." The grandiloquent definition of wisdom as " the knowledge of things divine and human, and of the causes by which these are controlled " — see Plutarch, De Plac. Philos. Book 1, Preface (Opp. 9, 468) ; Seneca, Epist. 89, 4 ; Cicero, De Offic. 2 (2), 5 ; and Tusc. Qucest. 4 (26), 57 — was probably intended by some of the Stoics for such as could not ap- preciate the grandeur of simple moral excellence. 3 D 50 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. III. quently termed lack of wisdom, or of understanding, folly or senselessness.27 In our scanty remnants of the Greek Stoics we find it designated in the same way.28 The Jews used the Greek term Logos, commonly mean- ing word, discourse, or reason, in a peculiar sense, to designate any utterance of the Divine Will or agency of the Deity, though without understanding by it apparently anything which could be permanently separated, except in imagination, from God himself.29 Among the Stoics we find the same or a similar use of this word.30 The Jews used the term Law, in the singular, to desig- nate the Divine will or enactment. A similar use of it prevailed among Stoics, but not, apparently, among other heathens.31 27 "Foolish men (aauveToi) shall not attain her (Wisdom) and sinners shall not see her." — Sirach, 15, 7. "God loves nothing which does not dwell with wisdom. . . . Wickedness shall not prevail against wis- dom." — "Wisdom of Solomon, 7, 28-30; 10, 8, 9. "The Lord loves those who love her." — Sirach, 4, 14; 14, 20. "Fools make a mock at sin." — Prov. 14, 0. 28 See Hymn of Cleanthes, line 17, quoted in note 24. The fourth Stoic paradox quoted by Cicero {Opp. Philos. 1, 510) reads, " Every [morally] foolish man is insane." Compare the fifth paradox, in note 26. 29 See quotations in Ch. XI. note 59, from the Wisdom of Solomon. The way to this bold personification may have been paved by such earlier passages as the following: " By the Logos of God were the heavens set fast." - Ps. 32 (33), 6. God " sent his Logos and healed them."— Ps. 106 (107), 20. — In the Sibylline Oracles, 3, 20, God is spoken of, " who created all things by his Logos." 30 The following is from the Hymn of Cleanthes : " All things in nature are moved (literally shudder) by thy impulse, Whereby thou guidest that pervading agency (Logos) which through all things Is intermingled." Lines 12 - 14. A grammatical difficulty, which cannot seriously affect the sense, is treated in the foregoing as it is by the Latin translator. In line 20, after a mention of the deity as having conjoined good with evil, the writer adds, " So that One may become moving agency (Logos) of all things ever-existing," or "of the ever-existing universe." 81 The Hymn of Cleanthes speaks of the divine nature (line 2) as " piloting all things by Law," and again mentions the — §i.] INFLUENCE ON THE GREEK STOICS. 51 Jews held that human enactments should conform to this law. Stoics, as will appear in Ch. VII. § IX. taught the same. In Jewish writings the Deity is figuratively represented as a pilot.32 In the hymn of Cleanthes the same figure of speech twice occurs. A play upon words, common to Jews and Stoics, is sub- joined,33 since it is not wholly without bearing on the question of mental intercourse between the two. The same may be said of a similitude, common in Jew- ish literature,34 which Stoics applied, apparently in con- tempt, to the perishable heathen deities.35 The absence " Unfortunates who, constantly desiring the possession of good things, Do not regard the all-pervading Law of God, nor hearken to it, By obeying which with their understanding, they wrould have an excellent life." Lines 22 -24. Perhaps dua/xopot (unfortunates) may in the above have been mentally associated with dvcr/uLcopoc (utterly foolish). Compare notes 13, 33, and the use of mwrari in Sueton. Nero, 33. Again in the same production we have the statement : " Tli ere is no greater honor to mortals Nor to gods, than perpetually to hymn, with justice, the all-pervading Law." Lines 35, 36, (36, 37). In the above passages the Greek word kolvov (common), meaning com- mon to the whole universe, seems best rendered by all-pervading. 32 Wisd. of Sol. 14, 3, quoted in note 20. 33 ""Baron KoafjLos aKoa/j-os." — Sibyl. Ora.c.7, 123. " icofffich &Koa/xa." — Hymn of Cleanthes, line 18, already quoted. Such a play on words seems to have been not uncommon among at least one class of Jews. See A??\os &8v\os, Zd/ios dfx,aos, 'Pci/^ pifitj. — Sibyl. Orac. 3, 363, 364 ; 4, 91, 92 ; 8, 165, 166. 84 The phrase melting like wax is applied to the wicked, perishing from God's presence, Ps. 68, 2, and, in the Septuagint, 57, 9. Also to the hills, Ps. 97, 5 ; Micah, 1, 4, and, in the Septuagint, Is. 64, 2 ; Judith, 16, 15. Also to the heart, Ps. 22, 14. In the Book of Enoch, 1, 6, the same simile is applied to what shall occur in the day of judg- ment ; the Greek words TrjKOfxevov ws unpbs (edit. Laurence, 2, 211, § X.) correspond with the Septuagint phraseology. 35 See citation from Plutarch, in note 18. The Greek words there used, ttjktovs . . . uairep Kypii'ovs, are merely different forms of those occurring in the Greek Old Testament and in the Book of Enoch. 52 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. III. of respect towards these beings implied in the similitude is even more indicative of Jewish influence than the si- militude itself. T\\e Jewish argument applied to the heathen deities, that whatever is born must also perish, seems implied in the juxtaposition of the two ideas by the Stoics.36 The argument common to Jews and Stoics, that evi- dence of design in the universe proved the existence of an intelligent Creator, will be considered in the next section. The name Jupiter, as one among Stoic appellations for the Deity, must not be regarded as implying anything in common between their god and the chief deity of their heathen cotemporaries. It would be as reasonable to confound the Shang-te of Christian missionaries with that of the Chinese.37 The appellation Father, applied by them to the Supreme Being, was borrowed from Jews. It must not be un- derstood in any sense common among heathens, nor yet perhaps in the sense to which Christianity has given prominence. Heathens used it to express the dignity or authority of Jupiter as ruling head over the family of gods.38 Jews used it in two senses. They designated by it the parental affection of the Deity towards his earthly children, or towards such of them as worshipped him.39 38 See the Jewish argument in the Proem to the Sibylline Oracles, Fragment II. line 1, of Friedlieb's edit., or line 39 of Alexandre's quoted in the Appendix, Note A, § II. Part A. The same argument as implied by Stoic leaders has already been quoted in note 18. 37 See Ch. I. note 2. The same reasons which weighed with such men as Morrison, Medhurst, Stronacb, and others, to call the Supreme Being Shang-te, might influence the Stoics in calling him Jupiter. 88 The idea that control is the prominent feature in a father, has been retained in European political phraseology. Belgium, in answer to a re- quest of Prussia, replied: "Our government is not paternal; we have no power to control free thought or free speech." — Evening Post (Weekly), (N. Y.), April 28, 1875. 89 " A father of the fatherless ... is God." Ps. 68, 5. '•'These [thy followers] thou didst test, disciplining them as a father, § I.] INFLUENCE ON THE GREEK STOICS. 53 They also designated by it the relation of the Deity to- wards the universe as its origin, source, or parent.40 In this latter sense the Stoics used it. If any of them ap- plied it to the Deity in the former sense, we have at least no indubitable record of such use. A question — natural if the Stoics originated in Jewish influence and equally so if they did not — is, " Why did but the others [the Egyptians] thou didst, as a destroying monarch, thoroughly search out with thy condemnation." — Wisd. of Sol. 11, 10 (or in the Septuagint, 11, ll). Compare 14, 3, quoted in note 20. "As a father pitieth his children, So the Lord pitieth them that fear him." Ps. 103, 13. " Whom the Lord loveth, he ehasteneth, Even as a father the son in whom he delighteth." Prov. 3, 12, Noyes's trans. " I have become a father to Israel, And Ephraim is my first-born." Jeremiah, 31, 9, Noyes's trans. Liberalist Jews may have deemed the Deity parentally thoughtful for others than his worshippers. Such a view might well be prompted by passages in the Old Testament (see Levit. 19, 34, Deut. 10, l?, 19, quoted on pages 21, 22), even if precedence were conceded, as in 1 Tim. 4, 12, to believers. 40 In modern phraseology we speak of a man as " father of a cause," "father of a denomination," "father of a project," meaning its origi- nator. Idleness is termed the parent of vice ; that is its source. Sirach (23, l and 4) applies to the Deity the term " Father of my life," meaning, apparently, its author. The Jewish term yever^p, Forefather, Originator (see Cli. I. note 4), corresponds nearly in meaning with the foregoing use of Father. Plato's use of the latter term (see Note K, § n. No. 7) was probably borrowed from the Jews. Compare Seneca's defini- tion of the term " Father " in note 71. Philo repeatedly speaks of God as the Father and Maker of the world, using the term Father to mean Originator or Author. See Against Cains, cc. 16, 36 (pp. 693, line 18, 726, line 26, Paris edit.) ; On the Cre- ation, c. 2 (p. 2, line 2, Paris edit.) ; On the World, cc. 1, 2 (Bonn's trans. 4, is?, 183) ; On [the] Monarchy, Paris edit. 556, line 10 ; and On Abraham, in Pfeiffer's edit. 5, 234, line 18. If any one of these works be not Philo's, then the evidence contained in it is from an additional writer. 54 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. III. they originate in Asia Minor and Syria, but not in Egypt ? The answer is, that in Alexandria, the chief school of Egypt, imagination and taste seem to have found more favor than simple statements and endeavors at accurate reasoning. The same cause, which, at a later elate, pre- cluded foothold in that city to the Marcionites, or Gnos- tics of Asia Minor,41 would have rendered it a difficult field for Stoics. § II. Roman Stoics. Among Roman Stoics we find additional points of union with Judaism. The Jews had, subsequently at least to B. c. 63, taught the coming of a King, or Messi- ah, who, to Europe," would have been a King from the East.42 ' Cicero, writing in B.C. 44 or 43, puts into the mouth of his Stoic brother Quintus, as already mentioned, an expression of belief in a King from the East.43 Again certain unmistakably Jewish books were in cir- culation attributed to Sibylla. Cicero represents his brother as defending the claim of these books to fore- knowledge.44 The exclusion of Stoics from public affairs (see Ch. I. note 31), and their expulsion from Rome shortly after the capture of Jerusalem,45 corroborate their affiliation with 41 See in Ch. XL § I. No. 1, the differing characteristics of Marcio- nites and Valentinians, the Gnostics of Asia Minor and of Alexandria. 42 See Ch. VI. § n. No. 1, and Sibylline extract in Appendix, Note A, foot-note 96. 43 See Appendix, Note A, foot-note 96. 44 See in Appendix, Note A, foot-notes 96, 97, and the text prefixed to them. 45 The reign of Vespasian was a coalition between himself, as leader of the popular party, and Mucianus, as leader of the moderate patricians. The expulsion of Stoics originated with the latter, and took place in the year following the capture of Jerusalem. " Because Demetrius the Cynic, and many others, prompted by what are called Stoic doctrines and misusing the pretence of philosophy, dis- cussed continually and publicly, to such as might be present, unsuitable things, and thus almost distracted some, Mucianus persuaded Vespa- sian to expel all such from the city, saying [to that end] many things §ri.] INFLUENCE ON THE ROMAN STOICS. 55 Judaism. Their subsequent expulsion, or alleged expul- sion, under Domitian, admits more question as to whether it were effected by the emperor or, during his absence, by the aristocracy.46 The iSToachic deluge is treated in the Book of Enoch and in the Sibylline Oracles as a thing of the past, which Noah had foretold, whilst in both works a conflagration is represented as yet future. Quintus Cicero, in the passage already referred to, whilst maintaining that some were endued with ability to foreknow " Hoods 47 and the con- as gainst them out of anger rather than from love of learning, and Vespasian immediately expelled from Rome all the philosophers except Musonius." — Dio Cass. 66, 13, Opp. 4,226, edit. Sturz. The teachings which "al- most distracted some" may have been concerning Rome's destruction or the end of the world, both of which were at that date subjects of popular anxiety. Lucan anticipated the conflagration with the confidence of a Second- Adventist. ' ' Whether the corpses [of the slain at Pharsalia] shall perish by corruption, or by the funeral pyre, is of no consequence. Nature reassumes all things in her placid bosom. ... If, Caesar, the fire should not burn these [various] peoples now, it will burn them together with the earth, it will burn them together with the abysses of the sea. A funeral pyre remains for them in common with the world, [a pyre] which shall commingle the stars with their bones." — Pharsalia, 7, 809-815. The Musonius, excepted above, though firm in a needed prosecution (Tac. Hist. 4, 10, 40), would, in averting a recourse to arms (Tac. Hist. 3, 81), have earned credit with a peace society. 46 Dio Cassius, who in the preceding note identifies philosophers and Stoics, subsequently narrates certain events under Domitian, to which his editor has affixed, in the margin, the date of a. d. 95. His narrative says : "Many others were put to death under this same charge of phi- losophy, and all the remaining [philosophers] were again expelled from Rome."— Dio Cass. 67, 13, (Vol. 4,278). In the next paragraph is mentioned the condemnation of Christians, or of Judaizing Gentiles. These two events, however, are complicated with a contest between Domitian and the aristocracy, to which we must hereafter recur. 47 The mention of floods in the plural maybe owing either to a current tradition, among heathens, of a flood called Deucalion's, not admitting identification with Noah's, or to the existence of different Sibylline frag- ments, which mentioned or alluded to the flood in ways that created a belief in more than one. 56 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. III. flagration of heaven and earth, which is to take place at some future time," speaks only of the latter event as IN THE FUTURE. A reasonable inference from the Second Epistle of Pe- ter is, that, among Jews, a belief had previously gained currency in some co-relation between the Hood and con- flagration.48 A similar inference concerning Stoics would be less certain, yet among Bo man Stoics the two events are constantly mentioned in juxtaposition. There was one Roman Stoic, faithful in the main to his sect, who had his own reasons, soon to be given, for es- chewing any identification with Judaism. This was Sen- eca. Whatever prominence he may have mentally given to the conflagration,49 yet in his writings we find prece- dence, in length of statement, accorded to floods. We find them among future equally as among past events. And both they and conflagrations are represented as nat- ural events periodically occurring.50 His mention of con- 48 " The then existing world, by being flooded with water, was de- stroyed, but the present heaven and earth are by His command treasured up for fire, being reserved to a day of judgment and destruction upon men who ignore God." — 2 Pet. 3, 6, 7. 49 In note 71, the simile of Hercules alludes only to conflagrations. 60 "Unless I falsify, water meets those who dig into the earth, and, as often as avarice sends us underneath, or any cause compels us to penetrate deeper [than usual], water puts an end to digging. Add to this that im- mense lakes are hidden below, and a mass of hidden sea, a mass of rivers running down through unseen places. On every side therefore there will be causes for a deluge, since some waters flow through the earth, others flow around it, [both] which, long restrained, will get the upper hand. Rivers will join with rivers, ponds with marshes. At that time the sea will fill the sources of all fountains and will set them free with a wider mouth. . . . The earth will dissolve and, while other causes are at rest, will find within itself the means of submersion. Thus I should believe that all masses will become one. "Neither will this destruction be long delayed. Concord [of the earth's component parts] is already strained and giving way, tentatur divellilurque. When once the world shall have relaxed somewhat from this requisite diligence [in holding things to their place], immediately and from every side, from what is visible and from what is hidden, from §n.] INFLUENCE ON THE ROMAN STOICS. 57 flagrations in the plural may be due to a desire of advocat- ing natural laws,51 or of differing from Judaism, or to both. Seneca was but a youth during the an ti- Jewish storm of above and from beneath, an irruption of waters will take place. Nothing is so violent and without self-restraint, so ungovernable and injurious to those who would restrain it, as a violent mass of water. It will use the permitted liberty, and will fill what it now divides and flows round. As fire originating in different places will quickly make one conflagration, the flames hastening to unite, thus in a moment the overflowing seas will co-operate. " That license to the waters, however, will not be perpetual. But when the destruction of the human race shall have been accomplished and the wild beasts also, whose dispositions men had adopted, shall have perished, the earth will again absorb the waters. Nature will compel the sea to rest, or else to rage within its own bounds. The ocean, thrown back from our abodes, will be driven to what is specially its own, and the ancient order [of things] will be recalled. Every [species of] animal will be generated anew ; and to the earth man will be given ignorant of crimes AND born UNDER better auspices. But among them also in- nocence will only last whilst they are [a] new [set]. Wickedness creeps in promptly. Virtue is difficult of attainment ; it needs a superintendent and guide. Vices are learned even without a teacher." — Seneca, Nat. Quasi. 3, 30, 2 - 7 (Opp. Philos. 5, 367-369). Cp. Nat. Quast. 3, 29, 4-8. Seneca's idea, that the "concord" between different constituent parts of the earth was already giving way, will receive illustration from his explanation of earthquakes, in his Natural Questions, 6, 10, 2 (Phil- osophical Works, 5,555), namely, that portions of the earth — supports apparently of this upper surface — were giving away with age, and that the concussion of their fall caused earthquakes. Compare also his moralizing on this subject in Ch. VIII. in a note at the commencement of § vn. The belief of Seneca in an early renovation of the earth may have been, and in all probability was, strengthened by that popular an- ticipation of such an event, which seems to have been chiefly kindled and nourished by Jews. The reappearance of mankind upon the earth was but a modified statement of the "resurrection." "We, accord- ing to His announcement (Is. 65, 17, 66, 22), expect new heavens and a new earth in which dwelleth righteousness." — 2 Peter, 3,13. Com- pare Book of Enoch, quoted in Appendix, Note D, § V. 51 " The deluge, which, equally as winter or summer, comes by a law of the world."— Seneca, Nat. Qucest. 3, 29, 3 (Opp. Philos. 5, 364). Com- pare in note 68 his views on the relation between omens and natural laws. See also note 23 on p. 150, and compare Tatian, Oral. 6. 3* 58 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. III. A. D. 19, and seems to have needed precautions against be- ing subjected to its violence.52 When the patrician party, in A. D. 41, regained power, he was banished,53 and though recalled in A. d. 49, he must have been conscious that the patricians deemed him an unreliable, or untrue, member of their body, on whom they would be glad to wreak their animosity.54 His precarious position did not, however, prevent him from maintaining the perishable nature of the gods,55 nor from ridiculing reactionary movements in their honor, though it may have prompted him to accom- pany this latter procedure with a fling at Judaism.56 Allusion has already been made to the argument from evidence of design in proof that an intelligent Being formed the world. Jewish literature furnishes more than one appeal to this argument.57 Stoic teaching again resembles or imitates it. Heathen teaching, with slight exception, does not. The exception bears, though in less decree than Stoicism, the marks of Jewish influence.58 No terser statement of the argument could well be 52 See Seneca, Epist. 103, 21, 22, cited in Ch. VIII. § I. note 9. 63 Compare in Ch. V. notes 9 and 10, and the text belonging to them. 64 See in Ch. V. note 9, Seneca's affirmation of risk consequent on any openly manifested disapproval of public games or brutalities. 55 Seneca, speaking of a wise man condemned to solitude, thinks that he would be "such as Jupiter, when on the dissolution of the world and the blending of gods into one chaos, he, during the tempo- rary cessation of nature, is content with himself, being given up to his own reflections." — ■ Epist. 9, 13. 50 See on pp. 67, 226, 228, citations by Augustine {Be Civilate Bei, 6, 10, 11) from Seneca, Against Superstitions. 57 " He that planted the ear, shall he not hear ? He that formed the eye, shall he not see ?" — Ps. 94, 9. " For the mass of men {literally, all men) are heedless by nature [in that] they were ignorant of God, and unable to know The Being from his visible benefits, neither by study- ing his works did they recognize the artist." — Wisd. of Sol. 13, l. " Nor yet are they to be pardoned, for if they had so much knowledge that they could examine the world, why did they not sooner discover its master ? " — "Wisd. of Sol. 13, ?, 9. Compare Rom. 1, 20, 21. 68 See Appendix, Note K, § I. 2 - 5, § II. 1 - 9. §iil] GENERAL REMARKS. 59 framed than that which Cicero puts into the mouth of the Stoic Balbus.59 § in. General Remarks. That any set of men should be pantheists, that is, should identity God and the world, or ascribe to the world the attributes of an intelligent Being, would be a singular feature in human history.60 Yet the Stoics have been commonly regarded as doing this, and passages in some of their writers bear out the statement.61 Other 69 Balbus alludes to a planetarium which had been lately constructed by his friend Posidonius, so as to imitate, with each revolution, the motion of the sun, moon, and five — then known — planets, and asks : " If any one should take this sphere to Scythia or Britain, . . . who among the Barbarians could doubt that it had been perfected ratione, by intelli- gence ? And yet they doubt concerning the world from which all things originate, and by which they are made, whether it be the result of chance, or necessity, or of a divine reason and mind, and have a higher opinion of Archimedes for imitating, than of Nature for creating, the revolutions of the sphere." — Cicero, De Natura Deontm, 2, (34, 35), 83. Balbus had already argued, in § 18, that the world was endowed with wisdom and reason. We shall find in Ch. VII. § I. that the dis- cussion, of which this forms a part, is, by its author, identified in time with the arrival of a monotheistic manuscript in Rome. Posidonius (or Poseidonius) was a Stoic teacher and student of natural science, resident at Rhodes, a Syrian by birth, as already mentioned in note 3. 60 The identification of God with the world implies, of course, either that the Deity lacks consciousness and intelligence, or that the world possesses both. It seems out of the question for any sane man to hold this latter view, to believe that the earth which he digs, the water wherein he cooks his meals, and the stone or wood out of which he con- structs his home, have either intelligence or consciousness. The word God applied to what has neither thought nor feeling seems a senseless misnomer. 61 "What is God? The mind of the universe. What is God? All which you see, and all which you do not see." — Seneca, Nat. Qucest. Preface to Book 1,§§ 11, 12. "Do you wish to call him Fate? You will not err. ... Do you wish to call him Providence ? You will say rightly. ... Do you wish to call him Nature ? You are committing no fault. Do you wish to call him the World ? You will not be de- 60 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. III. passages, even in the same writers, conflict with it.62 Not improbably their minds fluctuated on the subject. They did not share Jewish belief in a revelation which had man's moral improvement for its object, and, without this, a hindrance existed to believing in a moral ruler of the universe. Yet, if the deity were divested of moral attributes, a firm faith in his personal, intelligent exist- ence was unlikely to endure. In such Stoics as asso- ciated much with Jews, the conception of God as a per- sonal being may have predominated. The minds of others may have alternately retreated from objections to deeming him, on the one hand, a personal being, or, on the other, a mere force inherent in matter.63 Any belief in a physical resurrection was likely to find more advocates among Stoics of Asia Minor or Syria than in western localities where Jews exercised less influence. The Greek word for a resurrection, dvaorao-is, admits the ceived, for he is all which you see."— Seneca, Nat. Qucest. 2, 45, 1, 2. Compare in Appendix, ISTote A, foot-note 32, Virgil's pantheistic imita- tion of a monotheistic document. 62 See, for instance, the detailed statement in Seneca, De Bencficiis, Book 4, chapters 5, 6. In his Natural Questions, 2, 45, 2, he speaks of God "by whose spirit we live," and says in his Epistle 65,24, "All things consist of matter and of God. . . . But that which makes — namely, God — is more powerful and precious than matter, which is sub- ject to God." Plutarch, quotes {De Stoic. Repugnant. 39 ; Opp. 10, 348) from Chrysippus that Jupiter and the world are the only gods which need no nourishment ; and again on the same page, that " Jupiter will increase until he shall destroy all things by absorption into him- self." 63 Seneca says : "Whether the world be a soul, or a body under the guidance of nature, as trees and plants are." — Nat. Qumst. 3, 29, 2 ; Opp. 5, 3C>4. There is a visible difference between a living tree or plant and a dead one. Persons destitute of belief in a personal Deity, through whose aid all things live and move and have their being, recognize in the vitality of a tree or plant some, force unconscious of its own existence. Its operations are not hap-hazard, and in so far seem intelligent. Yet it lacks the chief traits of an intelligent being. This force, unconscious of its own existence, was, in most cases perhaps, what European Stoics meant when they used the word God. § m.] GENERAL REMARKS. 61 meaning re-establishment, and could therefore be applied to a renovation of the earth and of mankind as taught by Seneca. Thoughtful Stoics may have fluctuated on several points. Seneca at one period of his life evinced strong faith in a future conscious existence.64 At other times he speaks doubtfully.65 A document of which, under the name of Hystaspes, a mention will be found in the Appendix, Note A, §ix. renders it not improbable that some Stoics taught a judgment. On the subject of omens and divination the earlier Stoics coincided with heathen,66 rather than Jewish views, at least if by Jewish we understand the views of the more conscientious. Monotheism does not preclude belief in 64 "When that day comes which shall separate this mixture of the divine and human, I shall leave my body here where I found it. ... I am detained in an oppressive earthly prison. By these delays of an earthly age a prelude is given to that better and longer life. . . . We are maturing for another birth. . . . We cannot bear heaven until after an interval [of preparation]." — Seneca, Epist. 102, 22, 23. 65 "Death either destroys us or sets us free." — Seneca, Epist. 24, is. "Perhaps if — only the saying of the wise be true, and if some locality awaits us — he whom we regard as perished has been sent before us." — Seneca, Epist. 63, 13. "Death is either our end or a transition." — Seneca, Epist. 65, 26. 66 "But whereas the Stoics argued for all such things because Zeno had scattered certain seeds thereof, as it were, in his commentaries, and Cleanthes had slightly developed them, there supervened Chrysippus, a man of most acute genius, who explained his whole opinion concerning divination in two books, with yet another concerning oracles, and one concerning dreams. Following him, his auditor, Diogenes of Babylon, issued one book ; Antipater, two ; our Posidonius, live. But Pansetius, the leader in that sect, the teacher of Posidonius, the disciple of Antip- ater, degenerated from [the positions of] the Stoics. Yet even he did not dare to deny the ability to divine, but said that he doubted. What it was lawful in one thing for him, a Stoic, to do, in spite of the utter disinclination of the Stoics generally, ought not the Stoics to concede that we should do in other things ? Especially when that, which was not clear to Panaetius, is clearer than sunlight to the remainder of his sect." — Cicero, De Divinatione, 1, 3. 62 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. III. omens. Yet Jewish writings before the Christian era never advocate it ; a fact well deserving note, especially, at that stao-e of the world. A Being, whose communications had been exclusively addressed to man's moral nature, was not one upon whom questions such as were proposed to heath- en deities could be obtruded. Perhaps this may explain why the argument which Cicero puts into his brother's mouth 67 must have failed of currency among reverential Jews. Yet there was another reason which may have reached a larger class. Divination was commonly at- tributed to the aid of spirits whom the Jews regarded as evil, and with whom they deemed themselves forbidden to hold intercourse. After Cicero's time the Stoics, if we can judge from Seneca and Epictetus, modified or reversed their views of divination. Seneca seemingly ridicules it,68 and Epictetus 67 Cicero ascribes to his brother Quintus the following summary : "If there are gods, and if they do not make known to men future events beforehand, either they do not love men ; or they are ignorant of the future ; or they think it is of no importance to men to know the future ; or they do not think that it comports with their dignity to pre- indicate the future to men ; or not even the gods [though acquainted with the future] have means of comunicating future events." — Cicero, De Divinat. 1, (38), 82. As none of these were admissible suppositions, Quintus believed in divination. In the course of his answer Cicero re- marks : " They say that there is nothing impossible to divine power. I wish that it had made the Stoics wise, so that they should not, with superstitious solicitude and unhappiness, believe everything. " Or per- haps the translation should read, " So that they should not with anxiety and unhappiness believe all things which are superstitious." — Dc Divinat. 2, (41), 86. At a later date this language would, so far as it applied to omens and divination, have been deemed by patricians very heretical. The pitch which conservative condemnation of Cicero attained in the third century will be found in Ch. V. note 64. 68 "We think: Because clouds have collided, therefore lightnings are emitted. They (the Tuscan soothsayers) think that the clouds col- lided for the express purpose of emitting lightnings. For when they re- fer all things to divine power, ad deum, they are evidently of opinion, that the significance is not because of the occurrences, but the occurrences take place because of their significance. These things are brought to §iii.] GENERAL REMARKS. 63 puts it not a little into the background.69 Persons who differ from established views may in several ways be mis- led into unduly retaining popular phraseology.70 The patrician representative of the Stoics betrays this ten- dency.71 pass by the same intelligence, whether what they signify be the object or [merely] the consequence of their occurrence. But how can they have significance unless they are sent by divine power a cleo ? Unless birds had been put in motion for this express purpose, that they should meet us, how could they have occasioned right-hand or left-hand auspices? Divine power, [the Tuscan] says, did move them, [I answer] : You treat divine nature as if it had too little to do and make it the minister of trifles, if it arranges dreams for one and entrails for another. Such things take place through divine aid, but the wings of birds are not guided by divine power nor are the entrails of animals formed under [the blow of] the axe." — Seneca, Nat. Qucest. 2, 32, 2, 3. The concluding remark may have been based on Cicero's answer to his brother, Be Divi- natione, 2, 16 (§§ 36, 37), that an ox could not have lived without a heart, nor could the heart have flown away at the moment of sacrifice. Seneca, however, had, in opposition to him the patrician party, who, with little or no belief themselves in divination, deemed a denial thereof a serious political heresy. Owing to this or some other reason, he mitigates his denial by stretching natural laws so as to cover the case, and affirms almost immediately afterwards : "There is no animal which, by its motion and meeting with us, does not foretell something." — Nat. Qucest. 2, 32, C. 69 Epictetus, Dissertat. 2, 7, 6. (Compare, however, Disscrtat. 3, 22, 53). Encheiridion, c. 39, otherwise numbered 32. These will be found in Schweighseuser's edit. 1, pp. 201, 457 ; 4, pp. 402, 403, ; and in Higginson's translation, pp. 112, 250, 388, 389. 70 Sometimes the motive is to avoid odium ; sometimes it is hesitation in selecting the most appropriate, or defensible, new terms for new views. Some have their desire of harmony satisfied, or at least gratified, if per- sons of discordant opinions can be brought to express them in the same form of words. Others please themselves with believing their own views more comprehensive in proportion to the number of incongruous systems whose phraseology they can adopt. Benevolent endowments conjoined to creeds were a motive unknown to heathens. 71 " It is permissible to call by other names the author of our affairs. You may appropriately call him Jupiter. . . . Stator, who is not Stator because . . . after a vow to him, a flying army of Romans stood fast, but because through his good offices all things stand. . . . Our [sect] deem him father Bacchus and Hercules and Mercury : father Bacchus, because he 64 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. III. Cynics and Stoics were somewhat identified at Kome,72 though not perhaps until after the expulsion, already mentioned, of Greek culture and Judaism from that city. A Cynic was, apparently, a morose or dogged Stoic, or one who prided himself on disregarding the comforts of life.73 In fact any Stoics remote from Judaism and with- out, or with faint, belief in a moral ruler of the universe, or in a future life, must have been exposed to the risk of becoming grumblers. Their superior attention to moral questions would make them dissatisfied with the world around them, while there was nothing in their system which could counteract this dissatisfaction or make them cheerful, hopeful, and happy. The half-formed opinions and personal defects of this class must not, however, blind us to the earnest convictions and philanthropic zeal of truer Stoics. The importance which they attached to correct views of God can nowhere be found in heathen writers.74 The affiliation of Stoics with Jews implies, that the is parent of all things ; . . . Hercules, because his strength is insuperable and [because !] when he shall be wearied with labors performed, he will withdraw into the fire ; Mercury, because reasoning and calculation and order and knowledge belong to him. ... If you call him Nature, Fate, Fortune, all are names of the same God using his power variously." — Seneca, De Benefic. 4, 7, 8, Opp. 2, 473-475. The Hymn of Clean- thes in its first line addresses the deity as having many names, yet its author may have had in mind appellations very different from those of Seneca and not accommodated to heathen prejudices. 72 See an instance in note 45. Epictetus identifies himself with the Stoics in his Disscrtat. 2, 19, 23, 24 ; 3, 7, 17 (pp. 160, 211, Higgin- son's trans. ) ; and with the Cynics, Dissertat. 3, 22, 1-95 (pp. 243 - 258, Higginson's trans.). 73 Seneca treats the Stoics as having control over, and the Cynics as having divested themselves of, their natural tendencies, licet . . . homi- nis naturam cum Stoicis vincere cum Cunicis excedere. Seneca, Dc Brcvi- tate Vitce, 15, 5 ; Opp. Philosoph. 1, 454. 74 Cicero, at the conclusion of his De Natura Deorum (3, 94), represents the Stoic Balbus, after listening to Cotta's raillery, as exclaiming that they must discuss it again, that it was pro aris etfocis for the most pre- cious of human possessions. §m.] GENERAL REMARKS. 65 mass of them, at least after party lines had been drawn, were not in political sympathy with patricians. Excep- tions to this exist, as in the case of Helvidius Priscus and Marc Antonine. Politics in the former, probably, overlaid philosophy.75 The latter, though well-inten- tioned, was so extravagantly fond of approbation as to become an easy tool of the aristocracy. A dignity or fortitude of character, attributed to Stoicism, may, es- pecially at an early day, have drawn towards it some of the Eoman aristocracy in ignorance, or in disregard of its alliance with Judaism. In Hadrian's time Christianity had gained an influence in the heathen world which certainly equalled, and ap- parently much exceeded, that of Judaism. At this junc- ture, an embittered war 76 severed the hold of the latter upon heathens, and left Christianity to carry on the work which Judaism had begun. The generation which witnessed this crisis witnessed also the last days of Stoicism. Some already in its ranks retained their alle- giance.77 But no one born during or after the Jewish 75 This Helvidius was, as nearly as possible, the personification of ultra-senatorial ideas. An emperor of the popular party was hateful to him (compare Ch. X. foot-note 37), but one who belonged to and favored his class received honor at his hands. After the death of Nero, the aristocracy called in Galba, whose journey to the city, accord- ing to Tacitus {Hist. 1, (;) was bloody, and one of whose first acts was to murder several thousand unarmed soldiers (Tacitus, Hist. 1, (>, 37) on the day of his entry. When Galba, not long afterwards, was killed, Helvidius Priscus asked for his body. (Plutarch, Galba, 28.) What little we know of Helvidius renders it less probable that this request was prompted by disinterested humanity than by party sympathy. The reader may take interest in comparing his action with the follow- ing from two non-conservatives : "On the killing of Galba, some one remarked to [Musonius] Rufus, ' Now the world is governed by Provi- dence.' His reply was, 'Did I ever casually argue from Galba that the world was governed by Providence ?'"— Epictetus, 3, 15, 14. In Higginson's translation it stands at the close of Ch. 17. This Musonius is the Stoic mentioned in note 45. 76 See Ch. X. § vi. and Ch. XI. 77 Arrian was thirty years old when the war broke out, and Marc Antonine, though but a boy, had made profession of Stoicism. E 66 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. IV. war under Hadrian is known to history as a Stoic. Had the sect been exclusively of heathen origin this would be unaccountable. If it originated in monotheistic influence, one explanation, and only one, seems tenable. A class of heathens who admired, or were attracted towards, the teachings of Judaism, had, by some of its customs, or by prejudice of race, been kept outside of its ranks. Mono- theism, and a God interested in man's moral education, were now taught without these customs and without barrier of race. Thenceforward this class became Christians. CHAPTER IV. JEWISH DIVISION INTO WEEKS. § I. Adopted hy Heathens. The preceding chapter gave details of Jewish influence on a body of thoughtful moralists. The present one im- plies equal or stronger influence on the popular mind. The Jews divided time into weeks, a division unknown to Greeks and Romans before contact with them.1 Its universal adoption by society, while the government and ruling classes were hostile to Judaism, cannot be ac- counted for by its convenience,2 nor in any way, save by assuming a Jewish influence on the generality of heath- ens so powerful as to overbear governmental and patri- cian opposition. 1 See Smith, Did. of Antiq. pp. 222-233, on the Greek and Roman Calendar. Any division into weeks is there ignored. 2 Seven days constitute the nearest approximation to one quarter of a lunar month. The number is not an exact divisor either of a month or year, and it admits no subdivision. In Christian communities time is much less calculated for secular purposes by weeks than by months and days. §i.] JEWISH DIVISION INTO WEEKS. 67 Already, thirty or forty years before the Christian era, Horace represents a friend as, jocosely or seriously, de- clining attention to business on the thirtieth sabbath, with the remark, " I am one of the many." 3 About the Christian era a heathen teacher in Rhodes, mentioned by Suetonius,4 taught on every seventh day, which implies that the division into weeks was already recognized, to at least a moderate extent, by the com- munity around him. Near the middle of the first century, Seneca, after speaking of the sabbath, represents Jewish usages as having pervaded all nations, the conquered as having given law to the conquerors, — a noteworthy testimony from one who had no sympathy with the usages. In another passage he condemns the custom of lighting candles or lamps on the sabbath.5 At the close of the first century Josephus appeals to heathen cognizance of the extent to which observance of the seventh day and of other Jewish customs had spread.6 Whatever may have been the character of 8 See fuller quotation in Ch. VII. note 49. * " Diogenes, the grammarian, who used to hold public disquisitions at Rhodes every sabbath-day, once refused him [Tiberius] admittance upon his coming to hear him out of course, and sent him a message by a servant, postponing his admission until the next seventh day." — Suetonius, Tiberius, 32, Bohn's trans. 5 Seneca, Against Superstitions (quoted by Augustine, Be Civitate Dei, 6, n) ; also Epistle 95, 47. See both passages quoted more fully in Ch. VIII. note 132. 6 " Has not marked imitation of our practical monotheism [in the sense of monotheistic practices] found place in far-off multitudes ? There is no city whatever of the Greeks nor a barbarian one, there is not one nation, where the custom has not spread of [observing] the seventh day, on which we rest. Also our fasts, our burning of lamps and many of our prohibited meats, are borne in mind. They try also to imitate our mutual good-will, our alms-giving of our goods, our industry in mechanical arts, and our endurance in suffering for our laws." — Jo- sephus, Against Apion, 2, 39. Compare citation from Juvenal in Ch. X. note 118. On the use of "practical monotheism" to designate or include ceremonial observances, see in the Appendix, under Note B, § i. the last paragraph of sub-section 4. 68 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. IV. Josephus, his appeal would have been inexplicable, unless the division into weeks had already been widely adopted by heathens. § ii. Numbering and Nomenclature of the Days. A distinct question from the division into wTeeks is that of nomenclature for the individual days. The Jews used none.7 They designated the first and last days of the week as the " First " day, the " Seventh " day. How they designated the intermediate ones is less evident, — perhaps by numbering forward or backward from the seventh. In the beginning of the third century, a cus- tom had become general among heathens of naming the seven days after the sun, moon, and five then known planets.8 Fifty years earlier Justin Martyr, a Gentile Christian, subsequently to the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian, in a work addressed to heathens, speaks of Sunday and Saturday, but ignores or avoids any name for Friday.9 Tertullian also, in works addressed to 7 Their term sabbath for the seventh day is scarcely an exception. 8 "The connecting of the days with the seven stars called planets [the sun, moon, and five then known planets] originated with the Egyptians, and exists among all men, having, as we may say, com- menced not very long ago. The ancient Greeks, as I think, knew nothing of it. But since it is now a fixed custom both among other people and among the Romans themselves, and is to these latter in some sense a national custom, I wish to discourse a little concern- ing it." — Dio Cass. 37, 18 ; Vol. 1, 302. Dio treats this subject in connection with the Jewish matters in the time of Pompey, b. c. 63. It wras, therefore, in his mind, associated with the Jews. By Egyptians, he must have meant merely residents of Egypt, — Greek residents, no doubt, since the names of the planets are borrowed from those of Greek, not of Egyptian, deities. 9 " On the day called ' of the Sun ' all . . . come together. ... On the day of the Sun we all come together since it is the ' First day ' on which God, after dispelling darkness and chaos, formed the world, and on the same day Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead. For they cru- cified him on the day before the day of Saturn ; and on the day after the day of Saturn, that is, on the day of the Sun, ... he taught these things." — Justin Martyr, Apol. 1, 67. §n.] JEWISH DIVISION INTO WEEKS. 69 heathens, uses the terms day of the Sun and day of Saturn.10 The surmise would be plausible, that during the wide-spread anti-Jewish feeling in and after the latter years of Hadrian, an effort had been made to identify the weekly division of time with heathenism, or at least to relieve it somewhat from Jewish associations, by a nomenclature borrowed from planets named after heathen deities. The adoption of this nomenclature at Borne — by the ruling class doubtless — as a national custom, notwithstanding its origin among Greeks, strongly fa- vors the above surmise. In Asia the rebellion under Hadrian did not, to the same extent as in Europe, abolish respect for Jewish institutions. In North Africa the remains of this respect, even when vehemently shaken off by some Christians, are visible among heathens.11 Were we to stop here, the nomenclature of days would seem to have originated exclusively among heathens, but the name of Saturn was connected with the seventh day at least one hundred and fifty or two hundred years be- fore the rebellion under Hadrian. Tibullus, a cotempo- rary of Virgil, uses the phrase clay of Saturn}2 and the prominence given to Saturn in the Erythraean verses, B. c. 76, renders probable that already at that date the name of this planet was connected with the seventh day.13 10 Tertul. Apol. c. 16, and Ad Nat. 1, 13. 11 Tertullian speaks of persons, heathens doubtless, who " devote the Day of Saturn to ease and eating ; living outside of Jewish custom, which they ignore." — Apol. c. 16. Elsewhere (Ad Nat. 1, 13) he mentions heathens who made the same use of Sunday. 12 Tibullus, EUg. 1, 3, 18. 13 On the above supposition the writer of the Erythrsean verses would have had a motive for inventing the idea that Saturn was the first king of Italy, namely, that its inhabitants, for whom he was writing, might, as advocates of Ancient Custom, give special attention to the day of their first king. Compare Appendix, Note A, foot-note 49. Were there evidence that Saturn had been regarded earlier than b. c. 76 as the first king of Italy, then it would on the other hand become a fair question whether the Erythrrean writer had not invented the term Day of Saturn, since our first mention of it comes from Italy. 70 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. IV. Possibly some Jew, or school of Jews, may, at a yet earlier date, have endeavored to create reverence among Heathens for the sabbath by associating it with that planet, which moved (according to the Alexandrine system) in the highest or seventh heaven ; u the heaven, according at least to some Alexandrine Jews, in which dwelt the Supreme Being. In a Jewish mind, the first day of the week could read- ily be associated with the sun by the statement, Genesis, 1, 3, " God said, Let there be light, and there was light." § ill. Lord's Day. The substitution by some Christians, about A. D. 52 or 53, of the first for the seventh day as one of religious gathering, will be considered in Ch. VIII. § v. Christians may in the first century have called the first day of the week the Lord's day ; but the earliest certain evidence of such use is in the latter part of the second century.15 Jewish habits of merely numbering the days retained, until at least the fourth century, such promi- nence as to be recognized in imperial edicts.16 14 Tacitus, after mentioning one reason why Jews rested on the sev- enth day, adds : "Others [allege] that honor to have been intended for Saturn . . . because among the seven stars [sun, moon, and five planets] by which mortals are governed, the star of Saturn moves in the highest orbit." — Tacitus, Hist. 5, 4. 15 See Dionysius of Corinth (quoted by Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 4, 23), and yet later, Tertullian, Be Idol. c. 14 ; De Corona Mil. c. 3 ; De Orat. c. 18. Luke and Paul retain (Acts, 20, 7; 1 Cor. 16, 2) the Jewish phraseology. The Apocalypse (1, 10) in all probability uses ici/piamj, Day of the Lord, for the day of his second coming. The same use by Melito (Euseb. Ecc. Hist. 4, 26) is also probable. Compare Ch. IX. note 20. In the middle of the second century a Christian epithet for the first day of the week, at least among semi- Jewish Christians, was "the Eighth day." See Epistle of Barnabas, c. 15 ; Justin Martyr, Dial, cc. 24, 41. 16 Suicer in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, 2, 183, col. 2 (2d. edit.), under the article KvpiaK-q, quotes the statement of Nicephorus (Book 7, 46), "The day which Jews called 'the first' and which Greeks [heathens?] affixed to the sun, he [Constantine] named [legally ?] the Lord's day." Compare other quotations on the same page. §l] public games. 71 CHAPTEE V. AFFILIATED QUESTIONS. § i. Public Games. In times of political and theological strife questions not necessarily connected with either are apt to become involved and occupy prominent places. Some such, in the conflict at Borne, are important enough to claim dis- tinct headings. First on the list stand the public games, which effected more than any other institution towards demoralizing and brutalizing the Eoman mind. The senatorial faction at Borne identified itself with these brutalities. Whenever, during the period discussed in these pages, aristocracy and heathenism were dominant, the games became out- rages on humanity. When the popular and monotheistic party had ascendency, the taking of life in them was usually prohibited, even if the games were not abolished. Aristocratic leanings in this respect can be explained partly by the pretext which it afforded individuals for filling their pockets at expense of the provinces, and partly by a fear of Judaism and a consequent desire to oppose all its teachings. Judaism repudiated barbarous amusements.1 Opposition to Judaism made the patri- cian party advocate them. There is no reason why the patrician, rather than the popular, party should have up- held brutality in the games, save the different relation in which it stood to monotheism. Although party lines on this subject may not have been stringently drawn before the time of Augustus, yet their respective leanings can be discerned earlier. When the patrician plunderer Flaccus was succeeded, in B. c. 61, as governor over a part of Asia Minor by Quintus Cicero, a member of the popular party, public games were at once 1 See Josephus, Antiq. 15, 8, 1, quoted in Ch. II. note 26. 72 JUDAISM AT HOME. [CH. V. abolished.2 Julius Csesar, the popular leader, was not overly tender of human life, but it deserves note perhaps that he ordinarily manifested but little interest in these games.3 During the reign of Augustus rival influences con- flicted violently in the community. Monotheism, moral reform, and popular rights were gradually gaining strength. Patrician privileges and ancient usages, by a resort to fraud and violence, obtained, in B. c. 17, exclusive control of the Senate. Augustus, for no small portion of his reign, became an instrument of reactionaries, and therefore public games were in vogue.4 If the date of his differ- a Cicero writes to his brother Quintus : " How great a benefit have you conferred by freeing Asia, in spite of our intense grudge, from the unjust and onerous iEdilitiau tribute [for public games], since if one of the nobility openly complains that by your edict, ' No money shall be appropriated to games,' you have deprived him of two hundred thousand sesterces, what an amount would be paid if, as had become customary, exactions should be made in the name of all who exhibit games at Rome!" — Cicero, Epist. adFratrem, 1, l ; Vol. 3,541. Cicero in his Laws seems to fluctuate between forbidding personal con- flicts in the public games (De Leg. 2, 9) and forbidding only such (De Leg. 2, 15) as imperilled life. His views on this point may have been among the heresies for which, at a later date, the heathen party wished to burn his writings. 3 Caesar conformed to custom by exhibiting games (Sueton. Ccesar, c. 39) in which, on the occasion, at least, of his triumph, life must have been imperilled if not lost. He himself usually took so little interest in them as to attend to ordinary business during their performance (Sue- ton. August, c. 45), incurring no little blame thereby. Yet his triumphal games vied with patricianism in expense and, if the account by Dio Cassius (43, 23, 24) be correct, in murderousness. If so, it is to be hoped that the censure, said to have been bestowed on him, may have come from enlightened men of his own party, and may have aided in pre- venting a repetition of such folly and barbarity. The real, or sham, battle on that occasion was performed on each side by five hundred foot, twenty elephants, and thirty horse. Sueton. Ccesar, c. 39. 4 "In the number, variety, and magnificence of his public spectacles he surpassed all former example. Four-and-twenty times, he says, he treated the people with games upon his own account, and three-and- §i.] PUBLIC GAMES. 73 ent ordinances concerning them could be determined,5 a twenty times for such magistrates as were either absent or not able to afford the expense. The performances took place sometimes in the differ- ent streets of the city, and upon several stages, by players in all lan- guages. The same he did not only in the forum and amphitheatre, but in the circus likewise, and in the septa ; and sometimes he exhibited only the hunting of wild beasts. He entertained the people with wrestlers in the Campus Martius, where wooden seats were erected for the purpose ; and also with a naval fight, for which he excavated the ground near the Tiber, where there is now the grove of the Cresars. During these two entertainments he stationed guards in the city lest, by robbers taking advantage of the small number of people left at home, it might be exposed to depredations. In the circus he exhibited chariot and foot races, and combats with wild beasts, in which the performers were often youths of the highest rank. His favorite spectacle was the Trojan game, acted by a select number of boys, in parties differing in age and station ; thinking that it was a practice both excellent in itself, and sanctioned by ancient usage, that the spirit of the young nobles should be dis- played in such exercises. Caius Nonius Asprenus, who was lamed by a fall in this diversion, he presented with a gold collar, and allowed him and his posterity to bear the surname of Torquati. But soon afterwards he gave up the exhibition of this game, in consequence of a severe and bitter speech made in the Senate by Asinius Pollio, the orator, in which he complained bitterly of the misfortune of ^Eserninus, his grandson, who likewise broke his leg in the same diversion." — Sueton. August, c. 43, Bohn's trans. " He took particular pleasure in witnessing pugilistic con- tests, especially those of the Latins, not only between combatants who had been trained scientifically, whom he used often to match with the Greek champions, but even between mobs of the lower classes fighting in the streets, and tilting at random without any knowledge of the art. In short, he honored with his patronage all sorts of people who con- tributed in any way to the success of the public entertainments. He not only maintained, but enlarged, the privileges of the wrestlers." — Sue- ton. August, c. 45, Bohn's trans. Asinius Pollio, mentioned in the first of the foregoing extracts, was the host of Herod's two sons (Josephus, Antiq. 15, 10, 1), and the person to whom Virgil addressed his partly Messianic eclogue. His relations to the anti-senatorial party were such, that he refused to accompany Augustus in the war against Antony. He founded the earliest public library at Rome, and believed, apparently, in a culture different from that of public games. The accident to his grandson was the occasion, more probably than the motive, for his utterance. 5 ' ' He prohibited combats of gladiators where no quarter was given. 74 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. more reliable opinion might be formed as to whether the humaner ones were occasioned by influence of his step- son Tiberius, which weighed much with him during his later years, or whether public opinion, aiding his better impulses, had elicited them. Tiberius believed in human rights and human improve- ment, not in patrician privileges. From him brutalizing amusements found no favor.6 He deprived the magistrates of the power of correcting the stage-players, which by an ancient law was allowed them at all times and in all places ; restricting their jurisdiction entirely to the time of performance and mis- demeanors in the theatres. He would, however, admit of no abatement, and exacted with the utmost rigor the greatest exertions of the wrestlers and gladiators in their several encounters." — Sueton. August, c. 45, Bonn's trans. 6 Touching theatrical performances in A. D. 14, when Tiberius had just come to the throne, Tacitus says : "Augustus . . . had no distaste for such pursuits, and deemed it courteous (or perhaps deemed it ' a Roman's duty ' civile) to mingle in pleasures of the common people. The habits of Tiberius followed a different path ; but he did not, as yet, dare to turn towards more earnest pursuits a people who had been indulged during so many years." — Tacitus, An. 1, 54. In the year A. d. 15 "certain knights being desirous of righting a duel in the combats which Drusus gave in behalf of himself and Germanicus, (Tiberius) did not witness the fight, and when one was killed, he forbade the other any further fight- ing with weapons." — Dio Cass. 57, 14. "Drusus presided in the gladiatorial contests which he gave in his own name and and in that of his brother Germanicus, manifesting too much satisfaction in bloody fights, though between persons of the lower classes, for which . . . his father [Tiberius] is said to have reproved him. Why [Tiberius] himself abstained from the show is variously interpreted ; . . . some attributed it to distaste for pleasure, tristiti a inyenii, and fear of comparison, because Augustus liked to associate in such places." — Tacitus, An. 1, 7fi. No other instance of such a tendency in Drusus is mentioned by any one. In the year A. D. 27 "a certain Atilius, of the freedman class, having begun an amphitheatre at Fidena?, wherein to exhibit a gladiatorial show, . . . those who were greedy of such things flocked thither, because debarred from [such] amusements [at Rome] under the reign of Tiberius." — Tacitus, An. 4, 62. Tiberius " having given his opinion that per- mission should be granted the Trebians for transferring, towards the con- struction of a road, money which had been left by will for a new theatre, §i.] PUBLIC GAMES. 75 Caligula, though his father and subsequently his mother had been leaders of the patrician party, and though he may for a time have hoped to live in peace with it, did not share its views. His education by Tiberius had ren- dered brutal amusements repugnant to him, and when an occasion called for it he uttered this repugnance in unmistakable terms.7 With the accession of Claudius, patricianism obtained complete control. Murder in the public games became a daily amusement;8 and Seneca, who expressed him- self strongly on the subject,9 was banished. He may, in could not obtain the permission. The vote happened to be taken by a division. He went to the side of the minority, and no one followed him." — Sueton. Tiber, c. 31. 7 When five men were killed in the public games, Caligula, "in a pub- lished edict, deplored the slaughter, and execrated those who had en- dured to look at it." — Sueton. Calig. c. 30. 8 Claudius ' ' instituted constantly single fights ; for he took such pleasure in them as to have a fault in this direction. Very few beasts were destroyed, but many men, some being killed in fighting against each other, and some by wild beasts. He had a terrible dislike for the slaves and freedmen, who under Tiberius and Caligula had plotted against their masters, as also for such as had carelessly calumniated, or had borne false witness against any. He punished most of them in the above manner, and others in some different way. He also delivered many to their masters for punishment. The number of those who died in public was so great, that the statue of Augustus, there located, was moved elsewhere, that it might neither be regarded as constantly in the sight of murder nor [have to] be constantly veiled." — Dio Cass. 60, 13. The last sentence is a fair illustration of heathen views. Even a mur- derer who fled to a shrine could not, without insult to the god, be either punished there or removed, but a covering to his eyes prevented his knowledge of what was transpiring. Claudius "took chief pleasure in witnessing those who were cut down at the middle of the performance, about dinner-time ; although he had a lion killed which had been taught (?) to eat human beings, and which, on that account, was a special favorite with the multitude,— on the ground that it was not fitting for Romans to look upon such a spec- tacle." — Dio Cass. 60, 13. 9 "Nothing is so injurious to good morals as to take a seat in one of 76 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. other respects than as regarded his views of such amuse- ment, have been deemed an unfaithful patrician.10 Single combats were, in the beginning of this reign, a favorite method of murdering slaves who had willingly, or by compulsion, testified against their masters. The aristocracy had, during their revolt under Tiberius, com- mitted many murders, and had, during Caligula's time, planned, if not perpetrated, others. Whoever brought action against them could take the evidence of their slaves by torture. The Eoman law subjected these un- fortunates to torture for the purpose of eliciting truth ; our public exhibitions ; for at such times vices, because mingled with amusement, creep in readily. ... By chance, I happened into the mid- day exhibition, expecting plays and witticisms, and some relaxation wherewith men might rest from the sight of human gore. On the con- trary, the previous fighting was merciful [in comparison]. Now, trifles laid aside, we have the merest homicides. The men have no protection ; their whole bodies are exposed ; no blow is in vain. Most persons pre- fer this to the ordinary, or extraordinary, matches, ordinariis paribus et postulatitiis. . . . The end of the fighters is death. Sword and fire are used [to drive combatants on]. These things continue till the arena be empty. But some one [you say] has committed robbery. What then ? He has deserved to be hung. He has [you say] killed a man. The murderer deserves this suffering. But what have you deserved, miser- able man, that you should [have to] look on ? Kill, strike, burn [him]. Why is he so timid to rush against the sword ? Why so void of au- dacity to kill ? WThy so unwilling to die ? By blows they are driven against wounds, that they may receive mutual [sword] cuts in their naked and opposed bodies. The exhibition is intermitted. In the mean time, men are executed lest nothing should be going on. . . . What do you believe that the result will be to the morals against which a public attack is [thus] made ? You must [if present] imitate or hate [what is going on]. Either is to be avoided ; that you may neither be rendered like to evil men because of their number, nor an enemy to the many because they are unlike you. Recede into yourself as much as you can. Associate with those who will improve you. Admit [to your society] those whom you can improve." — Seneca, Epist 7, -2-7. The exposure to wild beasts, Seneca says {Epist. 7, 3) took place in the forenoon. 10 The assigned cause for Seneca's banishment (Dio Cass. 60, 8) is not credible. §i.] PUBLIC GAMES. 77 and now the masters, having obtained ascendency, forced such as had told the truth to murder each other in sight, and for the gratification, of those against whom, or against whose interests, they had testified. Had the spectators been fiends, the congruity between them and the spec- tacle would have been perfect. In the year 44 the siege and capture of a town was represented in the Campus Martius,11 and in a. d. 52, when the anti- Jewish movement culminated, nineteen thousand men were surrounded by military forces and compelled for hours, in a naval engagement, to maim and kill each other.12 The apologists of patricianism assert 11 Claudius "exhibited in the Campus Martius a siege and capture of a town to represent warlike doings and the surrender of the British kings." — Sueton. Claud, c. 21. Compare Dio Cass. 60, 23. 12 "About the same time, a passage having been cut through the mountain between the Lake Fucinus and the river Liris, that a en-eater number of persons might be induced to come and see the magnificence of the work, a sea-fight was got up on the lake itself, in the same manner as Augustus before exhibited one upon an artificial pool on this side the Tiber, but with light ships and fewer men. Claudius equipped galleys of three and four banks of oars, and manned them with nineteen thou- sand mariners, surrounding the space with a line of rafts, to limit the means of escape, but giving room enough, in its circuit, to ply the oars, for the pilots to exert their skill, for the ships to be brought to bear down upon each other, and for all the usual operations in a sea-fight. Upon the rafts, parties of the pretorian guards, foot and horse, were stationed, with bulwarks before them, from which catapults and balistas might be worked ; the rest of the lake was occupied by marine forces, stationed on decked ships. The shores, the adjacent hills, and the tops of the mountains were crowded with a countless multitude, many from the neighboring towns, others from Rome itself ; impelled either by de- sire to witness the spectacle, or in compliment to the prince, and exhibited the appearance of a vast theatre. The Emperor presided, in a superb coat of mail, and, not far from him, Agrippina, in a mantle of cloth of gold. The battle, though between malefactors, was fought with the spirit of bra,ve men ; and, after a great effusion of blood, they were excused from pursuing the carnage to extremity. " When the spectacle was concluded, the channel through which the water passed off was exhibited to view, when the negligence of the work- 78 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. these men to have been all malefactors, — a statement implying that the mass of evil-doers understood marine warfare. It is unworthy of credence. The alleged object for this fight — namely, to increase appreciation of an engineering work by the multitudes who should be brought together — is a transparent absurdity. Party feeling and self-glorification planned it. The comba- tants must have been largely sailors and soldiers from the popular party. Public men who absented themselves would undoubtedly have incurred the charge of disloy- alty to those in power. The intended victims hoped, even at the last moment, that such butchery would not be persisted in, and the Emperor had his own difficulties to make them fight.13 Some smaller exhibitions are omit- ted.14 With the accession of ISTero, a reaction took place against patricianism. This may have commenced ear- lier,15 but it now had power to control the administra- men became manifest, as the work was not carried to the depth of the bottom or centre of the lake. The excavations were, therefore, after some time, extended to a greater depth ; and, to draw the multitude once more together, a show of gladiators was exhibited upon bridges laid over it, in order to display a fight of infantry. Moreover, an erec- tion for the purpose of a banquet, at the embouchure of the lake, occasioned great alarm to the whole assembly, for the force of the water rushing out, carried away whatever was near it, shook and sundered what was more distant, or terrified the guests with the crash and noise. At the same time, Agrippina, converting the Emperor's alarm to her pur- poses, charged Narcissus, the director of the work, with avarice and robbery ; nor did Narcissus suppress his indignation, but charged Agrippina with ' the overbearing spirit of her sex, and with extravagant ambition.'" — Tacitus, An. 12, 56, 57, Bohn's trans. The squabble at the close fairly illustrates the kind of feeling which such entertain- ments were calculated to promote. 13 Sueton. Claud. 21. 14 See Dio Cass. 60, 7, 13, 23 ; Tac. An. 11, 11 ; Sueton. Claud, c. 21. 15 The recall of Seneca in A. D. 49 may have been owing to an in- crease of popular indignation at his exile. Tacitus attributes it (An. 12, 8), very improbably, to the favor of Agrippina, who seems constantly to have been his opponent. Tacitus may have failed to see, or recoiled §i.] PUBLIC GAMES. 79 tion. The community had probably become disgusted with shows and butcheries instead of improvements. Seneca, who had spent most of the preceding reign in exile, was, with Burrhus, placed in charge. Some time may have elapsed before the new administration was able to commence reforms, but when, in A. D. 57, a new amphitheatre had been finished, orders were given that none, not even condemned criminals, should be killed in the gladiatorial contests.16 Magistrates in charge of provinces were forbidden to exhibit rights of gladiators or of wild beasts.17 The reason assigned for this by Taci- tus is true, but is only a part of the truth. Provincial magistrates, in the preceding reign, had fleeced the people, and then wished the credit of generosity because of ex- hibitions which were not only demoralizing, but pecuni- arily onerous to those whom they governed. Moral sense and monotheistic teaching co-operated with pecun- iary interests in the defeat of patricianism. The contest was a hard one. The patricians gained a point on the subject of slavery, as will hereafter appear. The new administration may have confined itself to remedying the most glaring evils, and may have allowed less objec- tionable substitutes. In a. d. 55 a bull-fkdit, resembling modern Spanish ones, took place.18 Nero, though not without good points, had defects of character which must have seriously interfered with most reforms. The Jewish rebellion, of which the first mut- from saying, that the patricians had cowered before popular and mono- theistic feeling. 16 Tacitus gives the date in his Annals, 13, 31 ; and Suetonius the facts in his life of Nero, c. 12. 17 "The Emperor, too, issued an edict, 'that no procurator, nor any other magistrate, who had obtained any province, should exhibit a spec- tacle of gladiators or of wild beasts, or any other popular entertainment whatsoever' ; for, heretofore, they had by such acts of munificence no less oppressed those under their jurisdiction, than by extortion, warding off the blame of their guilty excesses by the arts of popularity." — Taci- tus, An. 13, 3], Bonn's trans. 18 "Men killed bulls, chasing them on horseback." — Dio Cass. 61, ?. 80 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. terings were heard in A. D. 64, shortly after the burning of Kome, gave, doubtless, an advantage to patrician re- actionaries. Galba, Otho, and Yitellius were, during more than a year, rival contestants for the throne, and were succeeded by Vespasian, who was of the anti-patrician party. It is, therefore, no matter of surprise to find all mention of public games in his reign omitted by Suetonius, and but a line concerning them in Dio. " Vespasian had beasts killed in the theatres, but took no great pleasure in hu- man duels." 19 The complying disposition of Titus subjected him, in more respects than one, to the patricians. In his two years' reign human duels were applauded by a prince, though not, perhaps, very heartily.20 Domitian, though attentive to the administration of justice, and favoring some anti-patrician reforms, cannot have had special scruples about public games.21 Had his history been written by friends, instead of by enemies, we could determine his views better. Nerva, his successor, was identified with the popular and monotheistic party. He abolished inhuman amuse- ments.22 19 Dio Cass. 66, 15. 20 " Having dedicated his amphitheatre, and "built some warm baths close by it with great expedition, he entertained the people with most magnificent spectacles. He likewise exhibited a naval fight in the old Naumachia, besides a combat of gladiators ; and in one day brought into the theatre five thousand wild beasts of all kinds." — Sueton. Titus, c. 7, Bonn's trans. " He treated the people on all occasions with so much courtesy, that, on his presenting them with a show of gladiators, he declared, ' He should manage it, not according to his own fancy, but that of the spectators,' and did accordingly. He denied them nothing, and very frankly encouraged them to ask what they pleased. Espousing the cause of the Thracian party among the gladiators, he frequently joined in the popular demonstrations in their favor, but without compro- mising his dignity or doing injustice." — Sueton. Titus, c. 8, Bohn's trans. " At the close of the public spectacles he wept bitterly in the presence of the people." — Sueton. Titus, c. 10, Bohn's trans. 21 See Sueton. Domit. 4. 22 In Sturz's Dio Cassius, Vol. 6, p. 599, note 13, appended to Book §1.] PUBLIC GAMES. 81 Trajan, who followed him, was a representative of pa- trician interests. Under him, games again equalled or exceeded in atrocity those under Claudius.23 Hadrian can scarcely be classified with either party. Gladiatorial contests were not prominent nor prohibited in his reign.24 Antoninus Pius was a thoughtfully conscientious man, averse to more than one patrician hobby, if we can judge from a brief historical sketch by Capitolinus. His biog- rapher mentions shows of rare wild beasts,25 but says nothing of killing men for amusement, and a quoted saying of his renders improbable that he permitted it.26 Marc Antonine had a Stoic education and patrician surroundings. He compromised his conscience by per- mitting some cruelties alien to his feelings,27 but he fur- nished gladiators with bloodless weapons for their con- tests.28 In the days of Augustus, Claudius, Trajan, and Marc Antonine, the party in power, the party with which the prince usually co-operated, were obviously advocates of these demoralizing shows. That party had created a 68, are the following extracts : " By this Emperor (Nerva) the single fights and shows of them were forbidden. "— Zonaras, p. 538, D. " During this time gladiators were prohibited and [also] shows of them, and in their place hunts as a show were invented." — Chronicon Paschale, under A. d. 97. According to Dio Cassius, 68, 2, Nerva ''abolished many sacrifices, many Circensian games, and some other public spectacles, doing away expenses so far as possible." 23 See in note 58 of Ch. X. details from Dio Cassius, 68, 15. 24 Hadrian "exhibited a gladiatorial contest through six successive days. ... He rejected Circensian games voted to him, except those for his birthday." — Spartianus, Adrian. 7, 8. 25 Capitolinus, Antonin. Pius, c. 9 ; Script. Hist. August, p. 36. 26 "He said : He would rather save one citizen than kill a thousand enemies." — Capitolinus, Antonin. Pius, c. 9 ; Script. Hist. Aug. p. 35. 27 See extract from Dio Cass. 71, 29, in note 9 of Ch. XII. 28 " Marcus took so little pleasure in killings, that he would [only] be present at the contests of gladiators in Borne [when] fighting as did athletes without peril [of life], for he never gave any of them sharp weapons." — Dio Cass. 71, 29. F 82 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. class feeling in favor of them which its individual mem- bers did not openly and decidedly dare to oppose, though some of them in private uttered their disapprobation.29 The censure of public games by Tacitus, even if indirect, implies that a portion of patricians were dissatisfied with them. He would otherwise have been obsequiously si- lent. That a mob favored customary amusements is a matter of course. § ii. War. A study of the two centuries included in this work shows that foreign wars were far more common under patrician rule than during the reigns of non-patrician or anti-patrician princes. The reigns of Augustus, Claudius, Trajan, and Marc Antonine, especially that of Trajan, were soiled in this way. The reign of Tiberius was re- markably peaceful. Caligula, Nero, Vespasian, and other Emperors, under whom the aristocracy failed of control, were, to a fair degree, free from external war. This was due to two causes. The moral objections to war had a more recognized standing in the party which was allied with monotheism,30 and this same party, the popular one, 29 See letter of Pliny, Jun., in Ch. X. note 59. 30 << \Ye restrain homicides and individual murder. "What [do we con- cerning] wars and the glorious wickedness of slaughtered nations ? . . . The very things for which, if men committed them as individuals, they would be capitally punished, we praise because they performed them paludati in a general's uniform [or, more literally, in a general's cloak]." — Seneca, Epist. 95, 31; Opp. Philos. 4, 115. "Listen to another question. How shall we deal with men ? What shall we do, what pre- cepts shall we give, that we may spare human blood ? How important is it not to injure him whom you ought to benefit ! It deserves great praise if a man be gentle towards men. Shall we command, that man extend his hand to the shipwrecked, point the way to the erring, share his bread with the hungry ? How long should I need for the enumeration of all things which are to be done and avoided ? Yet I can deliver him in brief this formula of human duty. 'The universe which you see, embrac- ing things divine and human, is a unit. We are members of one great body. Nature made us relatives.' " — Seneca, Epist. 95, 51, 52 ; Opp. 4, 123. On sharing bread with the hungry, compare Job, 22, 7 ; Prov. 25, §ui.] ANNEXATION AND DISINTEGRATION. 83 bore, in case of war, the most of its burdens, while its emoluments inured to the privileged classes.31 It may have been partly on this account that when effort was made to substitute a senatorial for a non-senatorial prince, the common soldiers (see § IX.) were found, or deemed to be, obstacles in the way. Cicero in his De Republica, written in defence of patri- cian views, makes the elder Scipio appear in a dream to his grandson and assure him that there was in heaven a place allotted to such as augmented the national terri- tory.32 § in. Annexation and Disintegration. In order to understand the senatorial position on con- version of dependent or independent kingdoms into Ro- man provinces, and reconverting the same into dependent kingdoms, we must study a division of provinces made in the time of Augustus between the Emperor and Sen- ate.33 The latter wished increase of its own power and emoluments rather than of the Emperor's. Consequently it favored annexation when hoping an increase of its own domain,34 and favored disintegration when anxious to de- • 21 ; Is. 58, 7 and 10 ; Ezek. 18, 7 and 10. On the membership of one body, compare 1 Cor. 12, 12, 20, 27 (a new application, perhaps, of Jew- ish teaching), and an extract from Sandars, hereafter to be given in Ch. VII. note 89. 31 At the death of Augustus common soldiers had been kept in service (Tacitus, An. 1, 35) for thirty years. This was soon mitigated when Tiberius became Emperor. The privileged classes, from whom the officers were chiefly taken, had, on the other hand, many ways of filling their pockets by contracts or robbery during war time. The absence of news- papers rendered exposure of fraud more difficult. 32 Cicero, De Repub. 6, 7 ; Opp. Philos. 5, .-575 (Greek trans, c. 3 ; Opp. Philos. 5, 408.) Compare extract in Ch. VII. note 23. 33 Dio Cassius (53, 12) enumerates the provinces which in b. c. 27 were under senatorial and those which were under imperial control. 34 A somewhat similar condition of things existed for a time in our own country. The slaveholders at the South wished annexation of territory to their own section, that their political power might be in- creased. They manifested no such desire to increase the area of the Northern non-slaveholding States. 84 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. Y. tract from that of the Emperor in behalf of its own coad- jutors.35 The instances of voluntary annexation, or of unsuccessful requests for it by communities, seem always to have affected the imperial, not the senatorial, portion of Rome's domain.36 No community was anxious to come under rule of the Senate. The alleged appointment of Herod Agrippa, Senior, as king in the first or second year of Caligula is, equally with the alleged cotemporary appointment of Antiochus, open to suspicion of being a political falsehood of later date. The subsequent presence of Herod Agrippa at Rome, and his evident favor and connection with the senatorial murderers of Caligula, imply that he did not expect advancement from Caligula, but did expect it from the Senate. In this he was not disappointed. When Claudius, an imbecile, attained the throne and became a senatorial tool, Herod had a kingdom given him equal- ling in dimensions that of Herod the Great ; and, perhaps to prevent subsequent curtailment or withdrawal of it, Claudius must have been induced to make a public com- pact with Herod in the Roman forum. The appointment of an alabarch or ethnarch over the 35 The domain granted to successive Jewish kings and ethnarchs, and to Antiochus of Commagene, could detract only from imperial, not from senatorial, provinces. 36 On the death of Herod, surnamed the Great, his unfortunate sub- jects earnestly, but unsuccessfully, petitioned (Josephus, Antiq. 17, 11, 1, 2) for annexation to the imperial province of Syria. Commagene wished and received in a. d. 17 the privilege of becoming an imperial province under Tiberius. It was returned to a son of its former king, (Dio Cass. 60, 8) in a. d. 41, when the Senate, on the accession of Claudius, obtained control. Under the popular party in A. D. 73 it again became an imperial province. Pontus, in Asia Minor, and also the Cottian Alps, would seem from the form of narration (Sueton. Nero, c. 18) to have peacefully become imperial provinces when Seneca and Burrhus swayed Roman affairs. The allegation that Caligula granted to Antiochus all the revenues of Commagene for the time that it had been a Pvoman prov- ince, was probably a political fabrication after the death of Caligula for the purpose of facilitating or concealing some enormous depletion of the prince's treasury in the interest of his enemies. §rv.] ANNEXATION AND DISINTEGRATION. 85 Jews at Alexandria was simply the establishment of a dependent king under another name.37 He and his co- adjutors belonged — in the only instance where we can determine their politics — to the senatorial, rather than the imperial, faction. This is obvious from the alabarch's imprisonment by Caligula, and release when the Senate under Claudius obtained control, as also from the fact that Philo, brother of the alabarch, defends the outrageous seizure of Flaccus. Two instances at least occur of a province or prov- inces being transferred by the Senate to the prince, both in the time of Tiberius. Achaia and Macedonia asked relief from taxes, and were thereupon transferred,38 — a pretty sure sign that princely taxation was less onerous than senatorial. At a later date, a freebooter rendered an African province more expense probably than profit. It also was, for a time at least, turned over to Tiberius.39 § IV. Regicide. Three cotemporary aspirants for, and incumbents of, the throne, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, perished in civil broil. Their deaths cannot fairly be included under the present head. Julius Caesar, Caligula, and Domitian were assassinated. Nero was forced to self-murder. The 37 Josephus, after mentioning that a large part of Alexandria was as- signed to Jews, says : "Their ethnarch [or national ruler] is appointed who administers [the affairs of] the nation, gives judicial decisions, superintends cri^/SoXcuW (public agreements) and ir poo-ray /xdruv (ordi- nances), as if ruler of an independent state." — Antiq. 14, 7, "2. 38 " It was decided by the Senate placuit that Achaia and Macedonia, which were pleading against their burdens, should, for the present, be relieved of proconsular rule and turned over to Coesar." — Tacitus, An. 1, T6. When these provinces had recuperated and could bear fleecing, the Senate (Sueton. Claud. 25 ; Dio Cass. 60, 24) reassumed control. When the popular party, under Vespasian, regained power, they were returned (Sueton. Vesp. 8) to the prince. 39 In A. D. 17 apparently, Tacfarinas (Tacitus, An. 2, 52) commenced his military operations, and in A. d. 21 "it was decreed concerning Africa [by the Senate] that Caesar should select the person to whom it should be committed." — Tacitus, An. 3, 32. 86 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. Emperors assassinated were all ANTi-senatorial ; nor can there be any doubt that in each of the three cases a majority of the Senate was engaged in the plot. A senatorial leader used, with his son-in-law, to celebrate the birthdavs of Brutus and Cassius, crowned with lau- rel.40 Among the popular party, murder, as a political remedy, would seem to have had less standing than among the aristocracy. § v: Slavery. Slavery was common among heathens, but Jews, if we except their kings, can rarely have been slaveholders during the century before and that after the Christian era. Jewish and Christian writings mention, not infre- quently, slaves, or freedmen, of heathen, but not of Jew- ish, masters. Among heathens slavery was in some respects less, and in others far more, severe than as it lately existed in this country.41 The aristocracy, rather than the popular party, evinced contempt towards,42 and 40 Juvenal, 5, 36. 41 Many slaves were educated. When this meant that opportunities of education were not denied to slave children, it implies that they were better treated than slave children in this country. When it meant that men or women of education were by fraud or violence, in peace or war, converted into slaves, it constituted a most repulsive feature of ancient servitude. Another inhuman feature was the law that, when a master was killed, his slaves should all be put to death. Cicero, after capturing Pindenissus, sold the inhabitants for slaves, and, while the sale was going on, wrote to his friend Atticus {Ad Attic. 5, 2C) : "While I write from my tribunal the result amounts already to twelve million sesterces," about $480,000. According to the New American Cyclopaedia, 14, GOP, which, however, gives no reference, the number of slaves sold on this occasion was about ten thousand. 42 Augustus assigned to foreign ambassadors, at the public spectacles, the same class of seats as to senators. He found himself afterwards obliged, in deference towards senatorial feeling, to change this (Sueton. Aug. 44), because one or more of such ambassadors had proved to be freedmen. Compare also (Ch. VII. note 18) the feeling towards Quintus Cicero, caused by his placing a freedman in an elevated position. . . . § v.] SLAVERY. 87 favored severe legislation 43 concerning, slaves and freed- 43 Compare Patricianism in cc. V. note 8, VII. note 86, X. note 124, with a law of Domitian (?) or Nerva (?) mentioned by Plutarch in Ch. X. note 82. The patricians, who from A. d. 41 to A. d. 54, while Claudius was Emperor, had had their own way, endeavored, during the earlier years of Nero's reign, to carry matters with an equally high hand. In A. d. 56, "the Senate took into consideration the malpractices of the freedmen ; and it demanded importunately ' that patrons should have a right of revoking the enfranchisement of delinquents.' For this many were ready to vote ; but the consuls, afraid to put the question without ap- prising the prince, acquainted him in writing with the general opinion of the Senate, and consulted him whether he would become the author of this constitution, since it was opposed by few." — Tacitus, An. 13, 26, Bonn's trans. Perhaps the rendering should be, " acquainted him in writing with the consensum almost unanimous opinion of the Senate that he should be the mover of the enactment." In either case, it was a piece of political strategy, which meant, "We desire, for our own ad- vantage, permission to make slaves out of freedmen, but we wish you to bear all the odium of being the responsible author of such an enact- ment." " Nero wrote to the Senate, that they should investigate the cases of freedmen individually, whenever they were prosecuted by their pa» trons ; but in nothing retrench the rights of the body." — Tacitus, An. 13, '27, Bonn's trans. The Emperor Claudius, in whose reign patricianism held complete control, had been its mere tool, and had saved the Senate all need of odious legislation. "He confiscated the estates of all freedmen who presumed to take upon themselves the equestrian rank. Such of them as were ungrateful to their patrons, and were complained of by them, he reduced to their former condition of slavery, and declared to their advo- cates that he would always give judgment against the freed- men, in any suit at law which the masters might happen to have with them." — Sueton. Claud. 25, Bonn's trans. The disposition of the patricians on this subject is strongly manifested by the comment of Tacitus upon the legal decision concerning Paris. " Domitia, Nero's aunt, was deprived of Paris, her freedman, under color of a civil right ; not without the dishonor of the prince, since by his command was given a judgment which pronounced him free-born." — An. 13, 27. That the court should sustain a man's claim to having been free-born, was deemed disgraceful. In A. D. 21, "a decree of the Senate also passed, equally tending to the vindication of justice [!] and security, 'that if anyone was killed by 88 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. men. Some held slaves by thousands, and perhaps took his slaves, those too, who, by his will, were made free under the same roof, should be executed amongst his other slaves.'" — Tacitus, A n. 13, 32, Bohn's trans. In a. d. 61, " Pedanius Secundus, prefect of the city, was murdered by his own slave. . . . Now, since according to ancient custom, the whole family of slaves who upon such occasion abode under the same roof must be subjected to capital punishment, such was the conflux of the people, who were desirous of saving so many innocent lives, that mat- ters proceeded even to sedition ; in the Senate itself were some who were favorable to the popular side, and rejected such excessive rigor ; while many, on the contrary, voted against admitting any innovation ; of these last was Caius Cassius. . . . Though no particular senator ventured to combat this judgment of Cassius, it was responded to by the dissonant voices of such as commiserated the number affected, the age of some, the sex of others, the undoubted innocence of very many of them ; it was, however, carried by the party, who adjudged all to death. But it could not be executed, the populace gathering tumult- ously together, and threatening vehemently that they would resort to stones and firebrands. Nero, therefore, rebuked the people in an edict, and, with lines of soldiers, secured all the way, through which the con- demned were led to execution. Cingonius Varro had moved that the freedinen too who abode under the same roof should be deported from Italy ; but this was prohibited by the prince, who urged, ' that the usage of antiquity, which had not been relaxed from compassion, ought not to be made more stringent from cruelty."' — Tacitus, An, 14, 42-45, Bohn's trans. The popular party, unfortunately, had no representative assembly elected by itself, through which legislation might be improved. To wrong and cruelty it could only oppose violence — a remedy so dangerous, that many who sympathized with the object shrunk from the means. A prince or a subordinate officer of the popular party had to execute what he abhorred. On deference for old customs, compare Ch. II. note 41. In a. d. 52, when aristocratic reaction under Claudius reached its cul- mination, a law was enacted (Tacitus, An. 12, 53) that every woman who married a slave, without knowledge of his master, should become a slave, or if, with the master's knowledge, should be degraded to the position of a freedwoman. This law was passed at a date when many slaves were more educated than their masters. It must have been un- popular, for the consul elect favored giving "pretorian ornaments and fifteen million sesterces" to its originator. If Suetonius (Vespas. 11) §vi.] EXPENSIVE LIVING. 89 pride in having them from diverse nationalities.44 Many slaves were purchased for their capacity as pugilists, wrestlers, or gladiators, and not a few because of personal beauty, or for capacity as clowns and jesters. The ag- gregation into one mass of human beings, without moral or other discipline, with no common objects, and many of them trained to fighting, could not but occasion un- happiness and crime. It need not cause wonder that some deemed every slave an enemy.45 Neither were the slaves a terror to the household only. A whole neigh- borhood must often have suffered from these lawless bands. § VI. Expensive Living. From the battle of Actium (b. c. 31), when the aristoc- racy obtained nearly complete control, until the accession of Vespasian, when their power was more effectually crip- pled than at any intermediate period, an inordinately ex- pensive habit of living was in vogue among the wealthier Romans.46 The explanation by Tacitus of its decay is insufficient.47 The only satisfactory explanation is, that be correct, that a similar law was enacted in the time of Vespasian, he must err in supposing that Vespasian prompted it. Patricianism, in the time of Suetonius, had control of the book-markets, and was skilful in making its enemies responsible for its own more odious acts. Vespasian's cherished wife was a freedwoman. He was uninfected by patrician sen- timent on this subject. 44 " What should first be prohibited . . . the number and nationality, numerum et nationes, of our slaves." — Tiberius in Tacitus, An. 3, 53. 46 "The proverb is current : 'As many slaves [as we have] so many [are] our enemies.' We do not have them [originally] as enemies, we make them such." — Seneca, Epist. 47, 3, 4. 46 ' ' The luxury of the table which, from the battle of Actium to the revolution by which Galba obtained the Empire, a space of a hundred years, was practised with the most costly profusion, began then gradually to decline." — Tacitus, An. 3, 55, Bonn's trans. 47 ' ' Men of no family, frequently chosen senators from the municipal towns, from the colonies, and even from the provinces, brought with them the frugality they observed at home ; and though, by good fortune or industry, many of them grew wealthy as they grew old, yet their for- 90 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. when the popular party under Vespasian came into partial possession of power, patricians were no longer able to fleece the provinces so extensively as before, and were compelled by lack of means to retrench their style of liv- ing. So long as extravagance was paid for by the pro- vincials, no remedy was found. Some doubtless desired a remedy ; for — since all cannot have been equally favored with official spoils — some found themselves on the road to ruin. Such men, instead of acting independently and refusing to imitate extravagance, wished a legal restriction put upon others, that these others might not outshine them.48 They naturally were not ambitious to be deemed raer habits continued. But Vespasian was the great promoter of parsi- monious living, himself a pattern of primitive strictness in his person and table : hence the compliance of the public with the manners of the prince, and the gratification of imitating him, operated more powerfully than the terror of laws and all their penalties. Or perhaps all human things go a certain round, and there are revolutions in manners analogous to the vicissitudes of the seasons." — Ibid., Bolm's trans. 48 "At home some severe measures were apprehended against luxury, which was carried beyond all bounds in everything which involved a profuse expenditure. But the more pernicious instances of extravagance were covered, as the cost was generally a secret ; while from the sums spent in gluttony and revelry, as they were the subject of daily animad- version, apprehensions were raised of some severe corrective from a prince who observed himself the ancient parsimony. For Caius Bibulus, having begun the complaint, the other ediles took it up and declared ' that the sumptuary laws were despised ; the pomp and ex- pense of plate and entertainments, in spite of restraints, increased daily, and by moderate penalties the evil could not be stopped.' This grievance thus represented to the Senate was by them referred entirely to the Em- peror. Tiberius . . . wrote at last to the Senate in this manner : . . . 1 What is it that I am first to prohibit, what excess retrench to the an- cient standard ? Am I to begin with that of our country-seats, spacious without bounds ; and with the number of domestics, from various coun- tries ? or with the quantity of silver and gold ? or with the pictures, and statues of brass, the wonders of art ? or with vestments, promiscuously worn by men and women ? or with what is peculiar to the women, — those precious stones, — for the purchase of which our coin is carried into foreign or hostile nations?" — Tacitus, An: 3, 5-2, 53, Bonn's trans. The frugality of Tiberius was that of a conscientious man. The state- §vi.] EXPENSIVE LIVING. 91 authors of such a law, but under pretence of deference wished the prince to assume its authorship and odium.49 Other witnesses than Tacitus testify to costly Roman gluttony. Seneca dwells upon the almost or altogether beastly habits of gormandizing and ruinous consequences to health.50 He tells us : " You will not wonder that dis- eases are innumerable. Count the cooks. All study is at an end, and professors of liberal knowledge without at- tendance preside over deserted localities. There is soli- tude in the schools of rhetoricians and philosophers. But how celebrated are cooks ! " 61 Among the books discov- ered at Herculaneum, not a few seem to have been upon cookery.52 Tiberius, Vespasian, and Domitian discoun- ments that he and Vespasian imitated ancient frugality are but an indi- rect method of giving to antiquity an undeserved credit. Patricians of earlier times were limited by their means more than by conscience or in- clination, and consequently their means, though less extensive, were, as in the case of Lucullus, largely used for display. In the days of Pompey it had already become customary to make room for a good dinner by tak- ing an emetic beforehand. 49 "These excesses are censured, and a regulation is demanded ; and yet, if an equal law were made, if equal penalties were prescribed, these very censors would loudly complain, ' that the state was utterly over- turned, THAT EVERY ILLUSTRIOUS HOUSE WAS MENACED WITH RUIN, and that every citizen was exposed to criminal informations.' ... If any of the magistrates, from a confidence in his own strictness of prin- ciple and energy, will undertake to stern the progress of so great an evil, he has my praises, and my acknowledgment that he disburdens me of part of my labors ; but if their will is merely to declaim against abuses, and, when they have gained applause for the same, leave me to bear the odium of proposing the measures they recommend, believe me, conscript fathers, I too am not fond of giving offence ; and though I am content to encounter heavy and for the most part unmerited animosities, for the good of the commonwealth, I am justified in deprecating such as are un- called for and superfluous, and can be of no service either to me or to yourselves." — Tacitus, An. 3, 54, Bohn's trans. 60 Seneca, JSpist. 95, 15-29. Gout is specified as common among women, owing to their way of life. 51 Ibid. 23. 62 " At Herculaneum . . . the titles of four hundred of those [books or rolls of papyrus] least injured, which have been read, are found to be 92 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. tenanced patrician table-customs, though the prominent motive of each was perhaps different. To Vespasian, a simple man, these table-habits would have been annoy- ing.53 To Domitian, who was systematically industrious, they would have been a loss of time.54 Tiberius was of a nature to share both objections, but would, in a greater degree than either of the others, have felt moral repug- nance to prevailing customs. The same piece of meat appeared twice upon his table,55 and when an inordinately expensive fish was sent him he declined to have it cooked.56 Table extravagance was but one of the forms in which Romans wasted their property. § vil. Suppression of Documents. Misrepresentation of history attends all violent strug- gles. Destruction of history, or of documents important unimportant works, but all entirely new, chiefly relating to music, rhetoric, and cookery." — Lyell, Geology, 2, 157, 4th London edition. 53 The triumphal procession of Vespasian tired him out, and thereby, in his own opinion, served him rightly (Sueton. Vespas. c. 12) for having wished it. Suetonius differs somewhat from Tacitus concerning the table of Vespasian, saying, "He entertained constantly and often in true and costly manner to aid the provision-dealers." — Sueton. Vespas. c. 19. This reads however like the defence of some friend who did not like to hear the Emperor blamed for parsimony. 54 See Ch. X. note 25. 65 " To encourage frugality in the public by his own example, he would often, at his solemn feasts, have at his table victuals which had been served up the day before, and were partly eaten, and half a boar, affirming, ' It has all the same good bits that the whole had." — Sueton. Tiberius, c. 34, Bonn's trans. 50 A mullet, according to Pliny {Not. Hist. 9, 17), rarely exceeded two pounds. Some one sent a large one weighing four and a half pounds to Tiberius. He apparently did not care to be quoted as having extravagant delicacies, and sent it to the provision-dealer, remarking, " Friends, I am much deceived if Apicius or Publius Octavius does not buy that mullet." — Seneca, Epist. 95, 42. The dealer put it up at auction, and Octavius bought it for five thousand sesterces. Even the bitter political enemies of Tiberius attribute to him no tinge of avarice. His pleasantry con- tains the best indication of his motive for not retaining the fish. §vn.] SUPPRESSION OF DOCUMENTS. 93 to its comprehension, implies excess of unfairness, or of timidity, or of both, in the party or individual resorting to it. The instances of it in Roman history are attribu- table, unless possibly in the case of Domitian, to the senatorial party. The burning in B. c. 181 of books alleged to have been written by Numa,57 indicates patrician intolerance, but the detriment which it caused to history must have been slight. Augustus established a censorship of publications (Tac. An. 1, 72), and suppressed papers left by Julius Caesar.58 The subjection of Augustus during many years to patrician influence, and the manner in which he carried out its behests, render certain that his censorship bore chiefly on the popular party, and raise suspicion that some of his uncle's suppressed writings, instead of being unimportant, were such as the aristocracy wished out of the way. In this connection the suppression or publica- tion of senatorial action has an interest. The Senate, when allowed its own way, became a secret conclave. The great popular leader caused its action to be published, thus rendering it more responsible to public opinion.59 The destruction and secretion of Sibylline compositions, 67 See Appendix, Note A, foot-note 14. 68 "Certain works are alleged to have been written by him [Julius Csesar] in boyhood and early manhood, as Praises of Hercules ; GEdipus, a tragedy ; also Maxims [or Proverbial Sayings], all which booklets Augustus, in a brief and plain epistle to Pompeius Macer, — to whom he had delegated the arrangement of libraries, — forbade ' jmblicari to be placed within reach of the public* (or, perhaps, 'to be sold by booksell- ers ')." — Sueton. Cwsar, 56. The Hercules and (Edipus, works probably of no consequence, may have been included in the prohibition as a means of withdrawing attention from Maxims, which the aristocracy did not care to have in circulation backed by Csesar's authority. 69 Julius Cffisar "introduced a new regulation, that the daily acts both of the Senate and people should be committed to writing and published." — Sueton. Cozsar, 20, Bonn's trans. Augustus made "several other alterations in the management of public affairs, among which were these following : That the acts of the Senate should not be published. . . ." — Sueton. August. 36, Bonn's trans. 94 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. whatever the pretext, was but an effort by the senatorial faction to prevent perusal of a document whose authority they had recognized and whose influence (see Ch. VII. notes 65, 67, 68) annoyed them. Caligula committed to the flames all record of testi- mony against his mother. This, however, was an act of kindness, not to his own party, but to his senatorial op- ponents. It was not meant to obscure history, but to assure individuals, that at his hands they need not fear for the past. It should be classed under forgiveness, rather than suppression of facts. He permitted the pe- rusal of works which the Senate had endeavored in the two preceding reigns to suppress.60 The further destruction of documents under his suc- cessor was an effort of the aristocracy to conceal their own misdeeds.61 During the senatorial conspiracy against Domitian, a biography of Helvidius Priscus, written by one of the conspirators, a biography which not improbably advocated or lauded assassination,62 was suppressed by a decree of the Senate, that body fearing to be held accountable for it. The inference may or may not be correct that Do- mitian called for its suppression. He is also charged (Sueton. Domit. 10) with punishing liberty of speech. Whether and how far the misdeeds of his antagonist, the Senate, have been attributed to him, may be a ques- bJ See Appendix, Note G, foot-note 114. "To relieve prosecutors and witnesses against his mother and brothers from all apprehension, he brought the records of their trials into the forum, and there burnt them, calling loudly on the gods to witness that he had not read or handled them." — Sueton. Calig. 15, Bonn's tr. alt'd. "The writings of Titus Labienus, Cordus Cremutius, and Cassius Severus, which had been sup- pressed by an act of the Senate, he permitted to be drawn from obscurity, and universally read. " — Sueton. Calig. 16, Bonn's trans. C1 Claudius "showed to the Senate the books of Protogenes, whom also he put to death, and the writings which Caligula pretended [?] to have burned, , . . and gave them [?] for perusal to the writers and [or?] to those against whom they were written, and after this burned them." — Dio Cciss. 60, 4. ■« Compare Ch. X. note 37. §vn.] SUPPRESSION OF DOCUMENTS. 95 tion. If the Senate charged its own crimes upon Tibe- rius and Caligula, it was equally likely and had but too much opportunity to do the same towards Domitian. At the close of the third century, destruction of Chris- tian records by the dominant patrician party was com- mon.63 About the same time, destruction to Cicero's writings was advocated ; probably because they were thought to make standing ground for monotheism.64 No charge is made against Emperors of the popular party, even by their enemies, that they destroyed patri- cian literature. In later centuries suppression of writ- ings was reintroduced by ecclesiastical and secular rulers. In modern continental Europe prohibition or destruction of literature has been systematized as*a regular govern- mental function entitled, Censorship of the Press.65 63 « * "With our own eyes we beheld the inspired and sacred writings given, in the middle of the market-places, to the fire." — Euseb. Ecc. Hist. 8, 2. Compare Mosheim, Be Rebus {Commentaries on the Affairs of Christians before Constantine), Cent. 4, § n. ; in Murdock's edit, see especially pp. 417, 423, 426, 427. 64 " I know that there are not a few who turn their backs and run away from [hearing] his (Cicero's) books, . . . and I hear others mutter indignantly and say, that the Senate ought to enact a decree for the de- struction of these writings, which prove the Christian religion and crush out the authority of antiquity." — Arnob. Adv. Gent. 3, 7. 65 Censorship of the press is sometimes political, sometimes theological, and sometimes practical. What cannot be published in one country is occasionally published in another and surreptitiously introduced where forbidden. The fourth edition of the Conversations- Lexicon, published in Saxony (a later edition of which furnished the basis of the Ency- clopaedia Americana), was, during the author's visit to Germany, under ban of the Prussian censorship. Von Raumer's Fall of Poland was, as a compliment to Russia, in the same category. The Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung, a leading German newspaper, was, during his stay there, for- bidden to circulate in Hanover. An instance of the practical kind came under his observation in a proof-sheet of an English newspaper, published at Leipsic, containing the censor's annotations. Some passage, intended to be humorous, ridiculed the uniform of a Leipsic military company. Opposite was written, Kann 96 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. § VIII. Sympathy of the Jewish with the Roman Aris- tocracy. To some extent the Jewish aristocracy sympathized, or at least co-operated, with the Eoman. Materials for de- termining their relations are scanty, and it is difficult to say whether this held true of their whole body, or of a majority, or merely of a minority. A portion may have co-operated openly ; a larger number may have done the same indirectly. The aristocracy at Jerusalem, as depicted by Josephus and the New Testament writers, were, with slight excep- tions, more devoted to class privileges than to the com- mon welfare. Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa Senior, who were closely in league with the patrician fac- tion at Rome, found support in the aristocracy of Juda?a, rather than among the middle and lower classes. The inference seems fair, that co-operation, direct or indirect, existed between the ruling classes at Rome and Jeru- salem. If we now turn to Alexandria, we find at one date — the beginning of Caligula's reign — a somewhat similar state of things. The various persons to be mentioned need a prefatory word. Flaccus had, five years before the death of Tiberius, been appointed by him to a six years' term of office as governor at Alexandria. If we may credit that portion of Philo's narrative which cannot be attributed to self- exculpation or other bad motive, he was a man of un- usual administrative ability and moral worth.66 nicht stehend blciben ("Must not remain"). The ridicule, even if un- called for, would, in this country, have hardly excited remark ; yet the censor, an intelligent historian, probably deemed it a duty to suppress what might cause feeling. Compare Ch. XIII. note 7. 68 The following is a confession wrung doubtless from Philo by public opinion at Alexandria : "This Flaccus being chosen by Tiberius Caesar as one of his intimate companions, was, after the death of Severus, who had been lieutenant-governor in Egypt, appointed viceroy of Alex- andria and the country round about, being a man who at the beginning, § viii .] SYMPATHY BETWEEN THE ARISTOCRACIES. 97 Philo, the well-known Jewish writer, identifies himself unmistakably with patricianism by his remarks on Seja- as far as appearance went, had given innumerable instances of his excel- lence, for he was a man of prudence and diligence, and great acuteness of perception, very energetic in executing what he had determined on, very eloquent as a speaker, and skilful too at discerning what was sup- pressed, as well as at understanding what was said. Accordingly, in a short time he became perfectly acquainted with the affairs of Egypt, and they are of a very various and diversified character, so that they are not easily comprehended even by those who from their earliest infancy have made them their study. " The scribes were a superfluous body when he had made such advances towards the knowledge of all things, whether important or trivial, by his extended experience, that he not only surpassed them, but from his great accuracy was qualified instead of a pupil to become the instructor of those who had hitherto been the teachers of all persons. ... He de- cided all suits of importance in conjunction with the magistrates, he pulled down the over-proud, he forbade promiscuous mobs of men from all quarters to assemble together, and prohibited all associations and meetings which were continually feasting together under pretence of sacrifices, making a drunken mockery of public business, treating with great vigor and severity all who resisted his commands. "Then, when he had filled the whole city and country with his wise legislation, he proceeded in turn to regulate the military affairs of the land, issued commands, arranging matters, training the troops of every kind, infantry, cavalry, and light-armed ; teaching the commanders not to deprive the soldiers of their pay, and so drive them to acts of piracy and rapine ; and teaching each individual soldier not to proceed to any actions unauthorized by his military service, remembering that he was appointed with the especial object of preserving peace. . . . " Having received a government which was intended to last six years, for the first five years, while Tiberius Caesar was alive, he both preserved peace, and also governed the country generally with such vigor and en- ergy that he was superior to all the governors who had gone before him. But in the last year, after Tiberius was dead, .and when Caius had suc- ceeded him as Emperor, he began to relax in and to be indifferent about everything [?], whether it was that he was overwhelmed with most heavy grief because of Tiberius (for it was evident to every one that he grieved exceedingly as if for a nkau relation . . . ), or whether it was because he was disaffected to his successor." — Philo, Against Flaccus, cc. 1, 3 ; Vol. 4, 151-63, Bonn's trans. 5 Q 98 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. nus.67 Other of his observations accord with this view,68 but its chief support will be found in his elaborate de- fence of patrician crime. Alexander Lysimachus, alabarch or ethnarch of the Jews at Alexandria, the wealthiest of his cotemporaries there, and brother of Philo, must have belonged to the 07 Philo opens his work Against Flaccus with the assumption — not assertion — that Sejanus prompted the anti-Jewish proceedings in the time of Tiberius, which must mean the enactments of a. d. 19. The falsehood, however gross, may have been dangerous to answer or difficult of disproof in a provincial city at the date when he wrote. Compare his Embassy, c. 24. A noteworthy circumstance is, that he nowhere seeks patrician favor at the expense of Tiberius. The time was not yet ar- rived when either Jews, or the better class of heathens in the provinces, would have borne to hear him disparaged. m Philo lauds Agrippa, patrician leader under Augustus, for his prac- tical monotheism, because "every day that he remained in the city, 'by reason of his friendship for Herod, he went to that sacred place [the temple], being delighted with the spectacle of the building, and of the sacrifices, and all the ceremonies connected with the worship of God, and the regularity which was observed, and the dignity and honor paid to the high-priest, and his grandeur when arrayed in his sacred vest- ments and when about to begin the sacrifices. And after he had adorned the temple with all the offerings in his power to contribute, ... he was conducted back again to the sea-coast, . . . being greatly admired and respected for his piety [ei) {xepti tt?s 7rdAew? — by nearly all the city,"91 — a remark which must have included Jews, since Philo would otherwise have stated in self-defence, that only Gentiles retained a good opinion of him. Philo attributes to Sejanus the measures against the Jews in the time of Tiberius.92 We have, however, con- vincing evidence that they proceeded from the patricians,93 who afterwards murdered Sejanus, and who w^ere allies certainly of Philo's brother and almost unquestionably of himself. He fabricates, and puts into the mouth of Macro, a statement that the latter had carried out the intentions of Tiberius against Sejanus.94 But Philo lived when he 90 For this alleged change of an upright man into everything blame- worthy, Philo assigns two causes. The first is grief over the death of Tiberius, — a reason so utterly absurd that its author cannot be credited with believing it. The second is, that the death of Tiberius (giandson of the Emperor Tiberius), and subsequently the death of Macro, convinced Flaccus that he must look for support to the anti-Jewish party. (Against Flaccus, cc. 3, 4.) But the death of these men occurred, as Philo well knew, subsequently to the kidnapping of Flaccus, so that his gubernatorial conduct, as Philo also knew, could not have been influ- enced by it. 91 Philo, Against Flaccus, c. 13 ; Paris edit. p. 673, line 20. 92 Against Flaccus, c. 1 ; Embassy to Caius, c. 24. »3 SeeCh. VIII. §i. 94 Embassy to Caius, c. 6 ; Paris edit. p. 686, line 1. §viii.] SYMPATHY BETWEEN THE ARISTOCRACIES. 105 cannot possibly have been ignorant that Tiberius and Macro were friends of Sejanus, who had punished, not him, but his murderers.95 The proceedings against the Alexandrine conspirators were in course of execution in A. D. 38, after the death of the emperor's sister, Drusilla,96 and about August 31, the date of Caligula's birthday.97 Yet Philo represents them as carried out under the direction of Flaccus, who, ac- cording to his own statement, had been kidnapped in the preceding year. Herod, by his regal splendor, outshone the governor.98 Yet Philo ascribes to modesty the furtive entry of this would-be king into Alexandria.99 The Senate, a body hostile to Caligula and greedy to recover its ancient power, had made Herod its general 10° in a province or provinces where it for nearly seventy years had been destitute of control. It authorized him to override Caligula's governor,101 and this during Calig- ula's illness. Yet Philo wishes us to believe that Herod had been appointed king by Caligula. The stay of Herod at Alexandria was evidently for weeks or months.102 Yet Philo wishes us to believe that 95 See Appendix, Note G, § in. 96 Against Flaccus, c. 8 ; Paris edit. p. 668, line 17. 97 Against Flaccus, c. 10; Paris edit. p. 670, line 42. 98 "He attracts all eyes towards himself when the}'- see the array of sentinels and body-guards around him adorned with silvered and gilded arms." Against Flaccus, c. 5, Bohn's trans. ; Paris edit. p. 655, lines 31 - 33. 99 See note 79. 100 See reference in note 77. ioi 1 1 rpne resi(ience nere 0f this man means your ruin ; for he is in- vested with higher authority and dignity than yourself." — Against Flac- cus, c. 5 ; Paris edit. p. 665, line 30. 102 tt fpnev j-trie populace] having had the cue given them, spent all their days reviling the king in the public schools, and stringing together all sorts of gibes to turn him into ridicule ; and at times they employed poets who compose farces. . . . When ... he [an insane man] had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders 106 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. the cause of his coming to Alexandria was his haste 103 to reach a kingdom alleged to have been given him in Ju- daea or Syria, countries which he probably neither ruled nor visited during Caligula's reign. Philo' s effort at dramatic effect causes increased dis- trust of his truthfulness, and the speeches which he fabricates for Flaccus indicate a hypocritical willingness to assume divine protection for aristocratic misdeeds.104 The only probable inference to be eliminated from his misrepresentations is, that the Senate was plotting against Caligula. It wished, as twenty years previously, to de- tach one or more provinces from subordination to the prince and subject them to one of its own political allies, as a preliminary towards re-establishment of aristocratic control. It needed in this instance co-operation from the Jewish aristocracy, which had to be bought by selecting a Jew as intended king.105 The Jewish aristocracy must stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the body-guards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as if they wished to plead their cause before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state."— Philo, Against Flaccus, cc. 5, 6, Bohn's trans. ; Paris edit. pp. 665, 666. 103 << Tne merchant vessels which set forth from that harbor were fast sailers, and . . . the pilots were most experienced men, who guided their ships like skilful coachmen guide their horses, keeping them straight in the proper course." — Philo, Against Flaccus, c. 5, Bohn's trans. ; Paris edit. p. 665. 104 "It is said ... he would go forth out of his farm-house and raise his eyes to heaven and . . . would cry out, ' 0 King of gods and men ! you are not, then, indifferent to the Jewish nation, nor are the as- sertions which they relate with respect to your providence false ; but those men who say that that people has not you for their champion and defender, are far from a correct opinion.'" — Against Flaccus, c. 20, Bohn's trans.; Paris edit. p. 679. 105 Jews, according to Philo {Against Flaccus, c. 8 ; Paris edit. p. 668, lines 9-12), occupied nearly the whole of two wards, and not a few were scattered through the remaining three wards, of Alexandria. This ex- plains the large control of the Jewish council, or Sanhedrim, which is implied in the senatorial effort to operate through Jewish allies. §ix.] MURDER OF BODY-GUARDS. 107 at first have had enough success to make them think of exacting terms for capitulation.106 Josephus makes no mention of Flaccus, nor of any per- secution suffered by Alexandrine Jews during his rule, nor, in fact, during Caligula's reign. He does mention an insurrection after Caligula's death at the accession of Claudius, an insurrection doubtless of the popular party. The sufferings of the Jews at this last-mentioned period from patrician oppression have not improbably been as- cribed by Philo to Flaccus, a ruler from the popular party four years earlier. That we may comprehend the possibility of such untruth, w7e must remember that in the reign of Claudius (when Philo probably wrote) it was unsafe to contradict patrician falsehood, as the fate of more than one man in the arena at Eome indicates.107 Gross falsehoods in the patrician interest passed without public correction, because correction would have been dangerous to the maker. If the Jews had been maltreated and oppressed during Caligula's reign, there would seem no reason for the failure of Josephus to mention it. If, on the other hand, their aristocracy were the aggressors, we can comprehend his remarkable brevity.108 When we come to the reign of Caligula, we shall find that his alleged appointment of Herod Agrippa was probably a fiction of later date to cover assumption by the latter of regal authority, and that his alleged purpose of erecting a statue in the temple wras equally a fiction intended to divert odium from patrician Jews. § IX. Murder of Body -Guards. The relative view of the patrician as compared with the popular party, touching sanctity of human life, has 106 philo attributes to Flaccus, what cannot well have happened until after he was kidnapped ; namely, that he " sent for our rulers, apparently to effect a reconciliation between them and the remainder of the city." — Against Flaccus, c. 10 ; Paris edit. p. 670, lines 12, 13. 107 Compare pages 76, 77. 108 (i j^ dissension having arisen at Alexandria between the Jewish in- habitants and the Greeks, three ambassadors chosen from either side came to Cams." — Josephus, Antiq., 18, 8, 1. 108 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. received some illustration in a portion of the preceding sections. It is additionally illustrated by the fact, that the murder of body-guards, mentioned in one or two in- stances by historians, proceeded from princes of patrician politics.109 § X. Two Senatorial Usurpations. Among senatorial usurpations two claim special atten- tion from the vantage which they afforded the aristocracy in contests with the prince and people. One of these occurred in A. D. 14, just before the accession of Tiberius. The other was six years later, during an effort to over- throw him. The success of the Senate in these two in- stances was partly due to an earlier plot whereby all advocates of popular rights had been driven out of it,110 and partly due to that control which the reactionary residue had thenceforward exercised over Augustus, over legislation, and over the distribution of offices. Augus- 109 n Galba's entry into the city of Rome, after the massacre of several thousands of unarmed soldiers, formed a disastrous omen of tilings to come." — Tac. Hist. 1,6, Bohn's trans. "Without a request, of his own free will, he could consign to the sword so many thousand innocent soldiers. My heart recoils with horror, when I reflect on the disastrous day on which he made his public entry into the city ; and on that his only victory, when, after receiving the submission of the suppliant soldiers, he ordered the whole body to be decimated in the view of the people." — Otho's Speech in Tac, Hist. 1, 37, Bohn's tfans. At an earlier date Claudius had been concerned in a conspiracy against Caligula, one of whose murderers, Sabinus, committed suicide. Another, Chrerea, as also Lupus, who had murdered Caligula's wife, were exe- cuted, probably as a concession to the popular party. The following extract blends their death, doubtless, with that of anti-patrician officers. Claudius extended amnesty to all (see, however, pages 75, 76), "only a few tribunes and centurions from those [?] who had conspired against Caius being excepted, not only for example's sake, but because he knew that they had demanded his own death also." — Suetonius, Claud. c. 11. "Chserea, therefore, was led to death, and with him Lupus and a CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF ROMANS." — JosepllUS, Antiq. 19, 4, 5. " Claudius having taken out of the way every soldier whom he sus- pected."— Josephus, Antiq. 19, 5, 1. 110 See Ch. VII. § VIII. §x.] TWO SENATORIAL USURPATIONS. 109 tus but partially emancipated himself from it towards the close of his life. 1. In A. D. 14, when Tiberius became prince111 or pre- siding officer of the Senate, he must have found civil and military offices mainly filled by partisans of the aristoc- racy, a portion of whom were plotting his overthrow. The Comitia, or popular assemblies, had, in the time of Augustus, been deprived of some, or, if Tacitus do not exaggerate, of nearly all power.112 The Senate, while Augustus, at a distance from Borne, was on his death-bed, seized the moment to abolish these assemblies, so that no laws could be enacted, nor candidates elected, save by itself. An election was due.113 The Senate took the matter into its own hands, ignoring utterly any popular electoral risdit. Indignation or lack of opportunity prevented at first any nomination of anti-senatorial candidates. The pop- ular party cannot have wished to recognize such an election. This feeling must, after a years experience, have yielded to a desire of mitigating the evil which it could not cure. Opposing candidates were, in A. D. 15, 111 See views of Tiberius touching the nature of his office in Appendix, Note G, foot-note 30 ; and compare in Note G the conclusion of § iv. 112 Augustus, after defeating Antony, had deprived the provincial towns (Dio Cass. 51, 2) of their popular assemblies. He, or the aristoc- racy in his name, gradually, during his reign, deprived the Comitia, or popular assemblies at Rome, if Tacitus {An. 1, 15) can be credited, of everything but a shadow of their former power. 113 Augustus died August 19, A. d. 14. Consular elections for the en- suing year were usually (Smith, Diet, of Antiq. p. 353, col. 1) in July. "The Comitia for elections took place every year at a certain period, though it depended on the Senate and the consuls as to whether they wished the elections to take place earlier or later than usual. , . . The president at the Comitia was the same magistrate who convoked them, and this right was a privilege of the consuls, and in their absence of the praetors." — Smith, Diet, of Antiq. p. 353, col. 1. It is plain from Tacitus {An. 1, Si) that the consuls for a. d. 14 were elected before the accession of Tiberius. The Senate doubtless forbore to specify a day for, and the existing consuls, acting in the interest of the Senate, for- bore to convoke, the Comitia, so that the people had no opportunity to vote. 110 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. put in nomination.114 The position of Tiberius as presid- ing officer caused the nominations to pass through his hands. After, or before the senatorial faction had rebelled against Tiberius, in A. D. 31, and had murdered many of the popular party, the Comitia must, in a limited shape, or otherwise, have been restored to the people.115 Possi- 114 Tacitus, as usual, cloaks senatorial misdeeds by attributing them to Tiberius, and (as elsewhere, see Appendix, Note G, foot-note 122) en- deavors to convey by implication and pseudo-moralizing what he does not venture distinctly to assert. He in this instance wishes his reader to be- lieve that Tiberius transferred the Comitia to the Senate, or, in other words, that he took the right of suffrage from his political friends, and bestowed it exclusively on his political enemies. Such a statement needs no refutation, but Tacitus refutes it (An. 1, Si) by betraying that the consular election took place before the accession of Tiberius. These con- suls could in a. d. 15, as their predecessors in A. d. 14, omit to convoke the popular Comitia. The two narratives are as follows : — A. d. 14. A. d. 15. " The elections Comitia were then " Of the Comitia for the creation first transferred from the Campus of consuls, which took place IN the [Martins, that is, from the people] to reign of Tiberius for the first the Senate ; for though the [preced- time in this tear, and in each slic- ing] prince had conducted all affairs cessive year, I hardly dare affirm any- of moment at his pleasure, yet, till thing, so different are the accounts that day, some were still transacted about it. His general practice was according to the inclination of the to declare, ' that TO him none had tribes. Neither did the regret of the signified their pretensions but people for the seizure of these their those whose names he had deliv- ancient rights rise higher than some ered to the consuls; others, too, impotent grumbling ; the Senate, too, might do the same, if they had confi- released from the charge of buying dence in their interest or merits.' votes, and from the shame of begging Sentiments plausible in terms ; in them, willingly acquiesced in the reg- substance, hollow and insidious ; and ulation by which Tiberius contented the greater the semblance of liberty himself with the recommendation (.') with which they were covered, the of four candidates only, to be accepted more remorseless the slavery in which without opposition or canvassing." — they would issue." — Tac. An. 1, 81, Tac. An. 1, 15, Bohn's trans, altered. Bohn's trans. 115 Under the year 32, Dio Cassius says, that Tiberius " sent them (the names of candidates) into the Senate . . . and afterwards those [who had been selected by the Senate] entering the assembly of centuries, or of §x.] TWO SENATORIAL USURPATIONS. Ill bly the Senate, after the death of Tiberius, again appro- priated to themselves all electoral rights. The effort of Caligula towards restoring popular assemblies with their legislative and elective powers was no doubt a chief cause of his being assassinated. 2. In A. D. 18 and 19, the Senate had sent Germanicus, a nephew of Tiberius, into Syria and elsewhere,116 to override his uncle's authority, and to manage matters in the interest of the patricians. The death of Germanicus, in A. D. 20, and the activity of Piso, the Emperor's lieuten- ant, baffled their schemes. They thereupon undertook to wreak their vengeance upon Piso. Charges were pre- ferred against him which, according to Roman law and custom, should have been tried in a praetor's court. The Senate, by a usurpation of authority, brought the case before itself, and condemned him. This usurpation must have caused a fierce contest between the senatorial and popular parties, in which the efforts, probably strenuous ones, of Tiberius, must have been on the popular side and in behalf of Piso. Tacitus, with whom crimes in the interest of patricianism, at least when committed by the Senate, were things to be overlooked, omits any narrative of the struggle. He even omits direct mention of the fact. What he does is, to put into the mouth of Tiberius a speech containing an allusion to this illegal transfer of jurisdiction. The allusion is so worded as to convey the false impression that Tiberius had approved the trans- fer or deemed it a matter of small consequence.117 The tribes, in whichever their election belonged, were, because of ancient form, voted for, as in appearance, at least, is yet done." — Dio Cass. 58, 20. Unless Dio copied the concluding remark inadvertently from some earlier writer, the form of popular election must have existed at the be- ginning of the third centurj^. 11(5 The authorization is placed by Tacitus (An. 2, 4?) in A. r». 17. Germanicus set out in A. d. 18. The concerted effort at rebellion took place in a. d. 19. See Ch. VIII. § I. in " \yE (?) have granted to Germanicus [that is, to his partisans] solely this extra-legal [advantage], that inquisition concerning his death should be made in the Senate-house rather than the forum ; before the Senate rather than before judges. Let other things be treated with like mod- 112 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. effort at rebellion will be more fully detailed hereafter.118 The pretext for usurpation of jurisdiction is matter for conjecture.119 § XI. Herod Agrvppa, Senior. The earlier history of Herod is elsewhere mentioned.120 His mother had been an intimate friend of Antonia. He perhaps, because of this, had been preceptor for a short time to the grandson of Antonia, who was also grandson of Tiberius.121 While thus engaged, Herod, as we may judge from his extravagant habits,122 must have become a companion of the aristocracy, and perhaps of their plots. At a later date he visited Tiberius at Caprese, probably as their emissary. He was put under arrest, but at Calig- ula's accession shared the amnesty granted by the latter. Some months later he headed a rebellion against Caligula, The story of Philo and his coadjutors, — copied by Jo- sephus,— that the latter gave Herod a kingdom, is doubt- eration. Let no one be influenced [against Piso] by the tears (!) of [my son] Drusus, nor by my grief, (!) nor yet [in favor of Piso] by fictions against us." — Tacitus, An. 3, 12. This is one of the accustomed methods, copied or invented, by which Tacitus endeavors to render Ti- berius responsible for the wrong-doings of his senatorial opponents. i18 See Ch. VIII. § i. 119 The Senate which in A. D. 14 abrogated, by ignoring, the Comitia, may in A. d. 20 have treated the judicial power of these assemblies as transferred to itself. "The Comitia Centuriata were in the first place the highest court of appeal, . . . and in the second they had to try all offences committed against the state, ... no case involving the life of a Roman citizen could be decided by any other court."— Smith, Did. of Antiq. p. 334, col. 2. Yet jurisdiction in Piso's case belonged properly (see note 117) to judges, — convened, as it would seem (Tac. An. 2, "9), by a prretor ; and only, perhaps, in the event of condemnation before such a court, could his case have been submitted to the Comitia. 120 See pp. 99, 100. 121 Josephus, Antiq. 17, 6, 6. 122 " He spent a great deal extravagantly in his daily way of living, and a great deal in the immoderate presents he made. ; . . . he was in a little time reduced to poverty, and could not live at Rome any longer. Tiberius also forbade the [such ?] friends of his deceased son to come into his sight." — Josephus, Antiq. 18, G, 1, Winston's trans. §xi.] HEROD AGRIPPA, SENIOR. 113 less a falsehood, originating with the conspirators, and intended to obscure their crimes. He must have been brought back from Alexandria to Eome as a prisoner, and cannot have seen Judaea until after Caligula's death.123 Claudius, who was under senatorial control, gave to this worthless man a large kingdom at the expense, not of senatorial but of his own provinces, and, prompted no doubt by others, ratified publicly some compact with him.124 The son of Herod was detained at Eome. The real object for this was doubtless that he might be a host- age within reach of the Senate to secure fidelity towards their interests from his unprincipled father. The need of security became evident afterwards.125 123 Compare notes 104, 105, of Ch. VIII. and the text prefixed to them. Had Herod gone to Judaea as king during Caligula's reign, he would not have deferred until after that individual's death the hanging up in the temple of a gold chain 'professedly his gift. The imprisonment hy Herod of Silas, his commander of cavalry (Josephus, Antiq. 19, 7, 1), is attributed to his recollecting too clearly the imprisonment of Herod, at a date, perhaps, when the latter was trying to represent himself as en- dowed by Caligula with a kingdom. He may have shared an imprison- ment of Herod under Caligula, but certainly not the one under Tiberius. 12i Claudius "made a league with this Agrippa, confirmed by oaths, in the middle of the forum in the city of Rome." — Josephus, Antiq. 19, 5, 1, Whiston's trans. 125 "As for the walls of Jerusalem, that were adjoining to the new city [Bezetha], he repaired them at the expense of the public, and built them wider in breadth and higher in altitude ; and he had made them too strong for all human power to abolish, unless Marcus, the then president of Syria, had by letters informed Claudius Cassar of what he was doing. And, when Claudius had some suspicion of attempts for innovation, he sent to Agrippa to Jeave off the building of those walls presently." — Josephus, Antiq. 19, 7, 2, "Winston's trans. "There came to him An- tiochus, king of Commagene ; Sampsigeramus, king of Emesa ; and Cotys, who was king of the Lesser Armenia ; and Polemo, who was king of Pontus ; as also Herod, his brother, who was king of Chalcis. . . . While these kings stayed with him, Marcus, the president of Syria, came thither. . . . Marcus had a suspicion what the meaning could be of so great a friendship of these kings one with another, and did not think so close an agreement of so many potentates to be for the interest of the Romans. He therefore sent some of his domestics to every one of them, H 114 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. Herod, of course, like others of his class, was attentive to outside pious observances, such as might enable his adherents to laud his religiousness.126 He showed him- self in matters of social and political life a thorough dis- ciple of the Eoman aristocracy.127 His arrest of Peter and James is said (Acts 12, 3) to have pleased the Jews, meaning, doubtless, the political conservatives. Fortu- nately for his countrymen his reign was brief. § XII. Insincerity of Patrician Hobbies. Political parties rarely believe all that they profess. The patrician party at Borne was not only no exception to this, but a striking, if not at times an unblushing, illus- tration of it. Patrician contempt for Greek culture, or dislike for anything foreign, meant merely distaste for what the Senate did not legally control. The distaste disappeared if patrician interests could be thereby sub- served. Any dress save the Roman might, in a period of patrician ascendency, meet dishonor from the leaders 128 and enjoined them to go their ways home without further delay." — Josephus, Antiq. 19, 8, 1, Winston's trans. 126 Herod " was exactly careful in the observance of the [ceremonial] laws of his country, . . . nor did any day pass over his head without its appointed sacrifice." — Josephus, Antiq. 19, 7, 3, Winston's trans. 127 << jje also showed his magnificence upon the theatre [at Berytus] in his great number of gladiators ; and there it was that he exhibited the several antagonists, in order to please the spectators ; no fewer, indeed, than seven hundred men to fight with seven hundred other men ; and allotted all the malefactors he had for this exercise, that both the male- factors might receive their punishment, and that this operation of war might be a recreation in peace. And thus were these criminals all de- stroyed at once." — Josephus, Antiq. 19, 7, 5, Winston's trans. These fourteen hundred men may have included some criminals, but the major- ity must have been persons politically distasteful to Herod and his party. Compare opposite views by Josephus on the morality of similar doings, in Ch. II. note 26. 128 Augustus "gave orders to the ediles not to permit, in future, any Roman to be present in the forum or circus, unless they took off their short coats, and wore the toga." — Suetonius, August, c. 40, Bonn's trans. §xil] INSINCERITY OF PATRICIAN HOBBIES. 115 of that party, and yet its leaders would at other times adopt foreign dress as a means of winning foreign favor.129 The same voices that decried foreign customs and servile descent were prompt to uphold either of them which could be made subservient to patricianism, or to its ally, heathenism.130 The same party which by trickery and violence expelled its opponents in B. c. 17 from the Senate, under pretext of purifying that body, subsequently in- troduced Gauls rather than Romans into it, if the former were more in sympathy with patricianism.131 Roman 129 According to Tacitus (An. 2, 59), Germanicus adopted the Greek dress at Alexandria, as Scipio at an earlier date had done in Sicily. The former was engaged in a patrician rebellion against Tiberius, and the lat- ter needed Greek help against the Carthaginians. 130 "Considering it of extreme importance to preserve the Roman people pure, and untainted with a mixture of foreign or servile blood, he [Augustus] not only bestowed the freedom of the city with a sparing hand, but laid some restriction upon the practice of manumitting slaves." — Suetonius, August, c. 40, Bonn's trans. "With regard to the religious ceremonies of foreign nations, he was a strict observer of those which had been established by Ancient Custom ; but others he held in no esteem. For, having been initiated at Athens, and coming afterwards to hear a cause at Rome, relative to the privileges of the priests of the Attic Ceres, when some of the mysteries of their sacred rites were to be introduced in the pleadings, he dismissed those who sat upon the bench as judges with him, as well as the by-standers, and heard the argument upon those points himself. But, on the other hand, he not only declined, in his progress through Egypt, to go out of his way to pay a visit to Apis, but he likewise commended his grandson Caius for not paying his devotions at Jerusalem in his passage through Judaea." — Suetonius, August. 93, Bohn's trans. The things herein contemned were equally old as those commended. Compare in Ch. VII. note 95, senatorial action whereby the priesthood of Vesta was opened to children of persons that had been slaves, for this must at that date, as we may infer from Sueton. Claud. 24, have been what was alone meant by children of freed persons. 131 " By a decree of the fathers . . . the iEduans first obtained the privilege of admission into the Roman Senate, in consideration of their ancient confederacy with Rome, and because thty alone of all the Gauls are entitled the brethren of the Roman people."— Tacitus, An. 11, 25, Bohn's trans. This was in a. d. 48, during the reactionary reign of Claudius. The measure was opposed (Tac. An. 11, 2*) mainly, no doubt, by the 116 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VI. citizens who believed in monotheism or popular rights were ejected. Gauls who upheld heathenism and patri- cian privileges were, when it suited the senatorial party, introduced. Judaism was the especial abhorrence of patricians. Yet their leader, Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, could frater- nize with Herod and laud the Jewish temple ; and they themselves not only fraternized with the Jewish rulers at Alexandria, but appointed as their head general an un- principled Jew. The charges of Unbelief seem to have originated ex- clusively with patricians ; yet when their party came into power under Claudius, it acknowledged publicly through that emperor its utter ignorance of the religion which it was defending, and it summoned as teachers slaves from Etruria, who were supposed to know something on the subject. On slave testimony see Ch. VIII. note 118. CHAPTER VI. BELIEF OF ROME'S impending destruction. § I. As a Precedent of the New Era. We now come to another and singular evidence of Jewish influence, a belief, namely, of Home's destruction, imparted by the conquered Jews to no small portion of their conquerors. popular party. The prince, according to Tacitus {An. 11, 24), paid no attention to the opposition, which means that the aristocracy who ruled him cared nothing for an argument against their interests. The Gallic aristocracy thus selected for senatorial privileges had no doubt common interests with that at Rome, and had perhaps been its ally in the con- spiracy against Caligula. Romans were about the same time (Bio Cass. 60, 11, 2) expelled from the Senate on the charge of not being wealthy enough. §i.] belief of Rome's impending destruction. 117 The Jews, instead of looking backward for a golden era, as was done by Greeks and Eomans, anticipated theirs in the future. To them its chief feature was the universal righteousness, which they, unlike their heathen neighbors, deemed necessary to, and sure to occasion, universal prosperity. Some thought that Prophets, or a Prophet, gifted to turn the hearts of mankind toward their God, others, a few at least, that a Priest, and yet others that a King, would introduce the new era.1 Each one's expectation was modified, doubtless, by his early education and by his personal character. The anticipa- tion of a king gained in prominence after, if not prompted by, the subjection of Judaea to the Romans. He was expected, of course, to be raised up in the land of Mono- theism, and would to Europe have been a King from the East. Distinct from any belief in a blissful era, and yet closely associated with it in the Jewish mind, was a sup- position that it would be introduced by a subjugation or thorough destruction of Rome. This view originated probably in B. c. 63, a year in which Pompey took Jeru- salem and entered the Holy of Holies, and in which Asia Minor was shaken by earthquakes, — a proof, many Jews might think, of divine displeasure at Pompey 's doings. Fuller details will be found in the chronological part of our narrative, under that year. At first we find merely a belief in the subjugation of Rome, that a king was about to be born for the Romans ; but as feelings became em- bittered, the expectation of her thorough destruction be- came prevalent. Still later a partly miraculous position was assigned to the Roman Emperor as Beliar, or, to use a still later phraseology, as Antichrist. 1 See mention of expected Prophets in the Sibylline Oracles, 3, TFO, quoted in Appendix, Note A, § n. Part E, and compare the question (John 1, 21), " Art thou that prophet ? " The expectation of a Priest, held of course by ritualists, will be found in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 3 (Levi), 18, quoted in Underworld Mission, p. 49 n (3d edit. p. 47 n). The anticipation of a king is better known ; see it in § n. No. 1, of this chapter. 118 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VI. That the Jews should cherish a belief in the downfall of their oppressor, is no more than has been done by other nations. That they should impose this belief on their conquerors, is what has been accomplished by none but themselves.2 Before proceeding we must attend to two different Jewish views. One was that mankind had Seven Ages given them for repentance, implying apparently a termi- nation of earthly things at the close of that period ; the other, that the world would last Ten Ages.3 The former of these must, if we may judge -from events in b. c. 17, have been then applied by the Jews in a somewhat altered form, to teach that Borne, in her unrepentance, would perish seven centuries after her foundation. The latter view was subsequently taught, and must have lasted for a century. In applying it to Eome the Jews phrased themselves that when the Tenth Age should come, that is, at its beginning, not at its end, Rome should 2 I once laid aside a newspaper containing some account of a widow in Hindostan burning herself after her husband's death. The narrative said that she predicted, as was customary on such occasions, the down- fall of British rule. The paper has been lost, nor have I had means to verify the statement. If it be true, it implies an anticipation, inter- woven with religious belief, somewhat analogous to that of the Jews under Roman rule. Such predictions have, however, found little credence among the English conquerors of Hindostan. 3 For the belief in seven ages see Sibylline Oracles, 2, 312, quoted in Appendix, Note A, § II. Part F. Compare Epistle of Barnabas, c. 15 (13, i •), " Putting an end to all things I will make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, of another world." The belief in ten ages appears in the work usually called Second Esdras, but which in the Ethiopic version, here quoted, is termed the First Book of Esdras : ' ' The world is distributed into ten periods. To the tenth is it arrived, and a half of that tenth remains." — First Book of Esdras, 14, 9, Laurence's trans, (corresponding to 2 Esdras, 14, 11, com. vers.). In the Sibylline Oracles (8,109-200) we are told that " when the tenth generation shall be in Hades . . . [God] will render the earth a deseit and there shall be a resurrection of the dead." See a different view in Ch. II. note 44. § I.] BELIEF OF HOME'S IMPENDING DESTRUCTION. 119 perish, and in this shape it is copied by at least one Eoman writer.4 Patricians in B. c. 17 originated a counter-forgery in the name of Sibylla, one object of which was, by stretching an age to one hundred and ten years, temporarily to parry or weaken the former of these views.5 Possibly Jewish views on this subject circulated in the guise of " Etruscan Teaching," for under that head also we find antagonist efforts towards elongating an age and making it one hun- dred and eleven years.6 4 See the Jewish view in § n. No. 4, of this chapter. In what I sup- pose to be part of the Ery thrsean Verses a statement now stands that when the tower of Babel fell, "then was the tenth generation of mortals since the flood came upon former men." — Sibyl. Orac. 3, ios, 109. (Compare 11 or 9, 14.) These two lines are, I suspect, an interpolation by some later hand. The established reputation of the Erythraean document was thus used to support the idea that during the tenth generation a con- vulsion might be expected. See also Sibyl. Orac. 4, 86. The following is from a Heathen : "The ninth age is running its course and worse periods than the times of iron." — Juvenal, Satire, 13, 2S, 29. In Dio Cassius, 57, 18, and 62, 18, the form of expression is that "when thrice three hundred years si i all have passed," that is, at the beginning of the tenth age or century, Rome should perish. In both passages it appears as an utterance of Romans. 5 See Appendix, Note A, § vi. 6 Censorinus, in his work Be Die Natali, c. 17, quotes from Valerius of Antium, Varro, and Livy, statements and facts supporting the posi- tion that an age, such as elapsed between age-games, was a hundred years. In the Epitome of Livy, Book 49, is a passage, not the one quoted by Censorinus, which mentions games as " celebrated in the Cen- tennial year." Censorinus in the same work alleges evidence in support of the posi- tion that an age exceeded, or might exceed, one hundred years. After distinguishing natural from civic ages, he tells us " The Ritual Books of the Etruscans appear to teach the length of natural ages in any particu- lar state. In these [books] it is said to be written that the beginning of the different ages can be thus determined. Among those born on the day when a city or state comes into existence, the longest lived finishes by the day of his death the measure of the first age, and of those remain- ing in the state on that day, the death of the longest lived finishes the 120 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VI. § it. Jewish Expectations. Jewish anticipations of Eome's destruction are scat- tered through the Sibylline Oracles and appear also in what is commonly called the Second Book of Esdras. They can also be inferred with much probability from the opinions of Jewish and semi-Jewish Christians. To Christians a distinct section will be devoted. In treating Jewish expectations we shall commence with those which are embodied in the Sibylline Oracles. For convenience of reference the pieces are numbered, but the order in which they were written cannot in most cases be certainly determined. No. 1. This piece, in its present shape, belongs to the year B. c. 29 or 30.7 Whether it existed with slight difference at an earlier date, is a question which at least deserves consideration.8 " But when Rome shall rule over Egypt also, Uniting it to its empire, then shall the mightiest kingdom second age. Thus successively the duration of the remaining ages is terminated. The portents moreover which admonish that each age is closed are divinely sent, because of human ignorance. The Etruscans, having diligently studied these portents in the light of their skill as augurs, committed them to hooks. So that in the Tuscan Histories — written, as Varro testifies, in their eighth age — there is given the number of ages granted to that race, the length of each of those which were already past and the prodigies which marked their close. It was written that the first four ages were of one hundred and five years, the fifth of one hundred twenty-three, the sixth of one hundred and nine- teen, the seventh as many, the eighth was then in course, the ninth and tenth remained, at the close of which there would be an end of the Ethuscan name." — Censorinus, De Die Natali, c. 17. 7 The reduction of Egypt after the victory over Antony took place according to Dio Cassius (51, 17) in B. c. 30 ; according to Censorinus {De Die Natali, 21), in b. c. 29. 8 Josephus {Wars, 1, 19, 3) mentions an earthquake while the forces of Augustus and Antony confronted each other at Actium. By reading "Judaea" instead of " Egypt also," 'lovdaias instead of nal § ii. 2.] BELIEF OF ROME'S IMPENDING DESTRUCTION. 121 Of the Immortal King appear among men, And a Sacred Prince shall come to hold the sceptre of the whole earth To all ages of the time which approaches. so Then inexorable anger for Latin men, A triumvirate shall destroy Rome by a miserable fate, But all men shall be destroyed in their own chambers When the fiery cataract shall stream from heaven. Alas for wretched me when that day shall come, 55 And the judgment of the Immortal God, the Great King. But at present go on building, 0 cities ; ornament yourselves all With temples and stadiums, market-places and gold images, With silver and stone ones, that you may come to the bitter day." Sibyl. Orac. 3, 40 - 59. No. 2. The following piece is found grouped with denunciatory prophecies over Gentile cities. There is no apparent clue as to its date. " 0 self-confident Borne ; — after the Macedonian phalanx Thou wilt shine to Olympus ; but God will make thee Totally unheard of. When thou seemest to the eye AlyviTTOv, we should have, without altering the number of syllables, a date in the year b. c. 63. We must in this case, however, understand the "Three" who destroy Rome as an idea borrowed, not from the well- known Triumvirates, but from the following event in the civil war be- tween Marius and Sylla. In the year B. c. 87 the Consul Oetavius of Sylla's party drove his colleague Cinna of the Marian faction out of the city. Cinna collected additional forces, and, contrary to the advice of Sertorius, consented that Marius, lately returned from exile, should join them. According to Plutarch (Sertorius, c. 5), "Cinna summoned Marius; and, his force being divided into three parts, the three [that is, himself, Marius, and Sertorius] acted as commanders." They marched against and captured the city, whose inhabitants were slaughtered and maltreated during five days and nights (Dio Cass. Vol. 1, p. 110, ed. Sturz) by the immediate followers of Marius, many of whom were slaves. At last Sertorius, out- raged at their brutality (Plutarch, Sertorius, c. 5), "speared all of them to the number of not less than four thousand, who had camped in one place." According to Cicero (in Catilinam, 3, 4, 4, 1) and Sallust (Cat- iline, c. 47), there must have been an alleged Sibylline passage, extant in b. c. 63, which mentioned that three persons would take possession of Rome, and, as the connection would at least seem to imply, with destructive intent. Compare Ch. VII. note 9. 6 122 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VI. To sit firmest, then I will cry these things in thine ear : — ' Destroyed, thou shalt bewail thy brilliancy and marble.' ' Sibyl. Orac. 7, 108-112. NO. 3. The earthquake mentioned in this, points out B. c. 63 9 as likely to have given occasion for it. The names of the cities mentioned by Eusebius in his Chronicon and by Tacitus (Annals, 2, 47) as overthrown in A. D. 17, differ from the list here given.10 The doings of Pompey and the extortions of Flaccus,11 in B. c. 62, may account for the bitterness of tone. " Again there shall occur the greatest portents among men. The deep-whirling Tanais shall leave the Mseotic lake, And in the deep stream shall be the track of the fruit-bearing fur- row. And the multiplied stream shall cover the neck [of land]. _ 340 Chasms [shall be formed] and narrow rifts ; and many cities With their inhabitants shall fall ; in Asia : Iassis, Cebra, Pandonia, Colophon, Ephesus, Nicsea, Antioch, Tanagra, Sinope, Smyrna, Marosune ; Of Europe : Scyagra, Clitus, Basilis, Meropaea, 345 Antigone, Magnesia, Mycene, Panthsea, Gaza, the all-blessed, Hierapolis, Astypalaea. Know then, Egypt's destructive race is near destruction ; And then, to the Alexandrines, the bygone year will be the better.12 Inasmuch as Rome has received from tribute-paying Asia, 350 Thrice so much riches shall Asia receive again From Rome, and shall repay deadly insult upon her. AS MANY AS FROM ASIA HAVE WAITED UPON ITALIAN HOMES, Twenty times so many shall be hirelings in Asia, Italians [who] shall serve in deepest poverty. 355 O tender, wealthy virgin, offspring of Latin Rome,13 9 Dio Cassius, alluding to this, says : " The greatest earthquake hap- pening of all that had ever taken place destroyed many of their cities. " — Dio Cass. Vol. 1, p. 292, ed. Sturz. 10 The cities mentioned by Eusebius in his Chronicon as overthrown in A. d. 17 are Ephesus, Magnesia, Sardes, Mosthene, iEgse, Hieroc*sarea, Philadelphia, Tmolus, Temnus, Myrhina, Apollonia, Dia, Hyrcania. 11 See in the next chapter under b. c. 62. 12 Year is used for time, meaning that the Alexandrines had seen their best days. 13 Virgin, offspring of Eome. This, in Jewish phraseology, means inhabitants of Rome. In the Old Testament we find Daughter of Zion, § n. 4.] BELIEF OF ROME'S IMPENDING DESTRUCTION. 123 Often intoxicated by being much sought for in nuptials, A servant, — thou shalt not wed in the world, And often thy mistress shall shear thy luxuriant hair. Justice,14 as ruler, will cast heaven-high things to the earth, 360 And again she gathers from the earth into heaven, For mortals are subjected in life to suffering and injustice. Samoa shall be ' Sandheap,' Delos [the visible] shall be invisible,15 Rome shall be ' Ruin,' and all [heathen] oracles come to an end."16 Sibyl. Orac. 3, 337-364. No. 4. The question whether this extract makes any hostile mention of the Eomans mnst depend on the sense at- tached to the word "people" in line 17. The mention of the tenth generation is hardly an interpolation, for it stands in connection with the subsequent lines. This renders probable that the piece is not earlier than A. D. 19. The period to which it seems most apposite is, for the first portion, A. D. 64, after the earthquakes in South Italy and the fire at Borne, and for the latter portion, a. d. 68, during the civil war, after Nero's death, in which Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian were rivals. " But when on earth are earthquakes and violent thunderbolts, Thunder and lightning and a mildewed land, Rabidness of swift wolves and human slaughter, Destruction of mortals and also of lowing cattle, Of four-footed herds and patient asses, 10 Of goats and sheep ; and thereupon the uncultivated ground Shall in quantities become a desert through neglect, And fruits shall fail, and freemen be sold as slaves or of Jerusalem, used for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, 2 Kings, 19, 21 ; Daughter of My People, for the Jews, Jer. 9, l ; Daughter of Tyre, for the Tynans, Ps. 45, 12 ; Daughter of Babylon, for the Babylonians, Ps. 137, S ; Daughter of the Chaldeans, for the inhabitants of Chaldaea, Is. 47, 1, 5 ; Daughter of Edom, for the Edomites, Lain. 4, 21 ; Daughter of Egypt, for the Egyptians, Jer. 46, 11 ; Daughter of Zidon, for the Zido- nians, Is. 23, 12. 14 For Aiktjv read Alktj. 15 Delos was the chief slave-market. 10 The concluding words are sometimes translated, "all [i. e. Sibylline] oracles will he fulfilled." The prior mention, however, of Delos, where Apollo was supposed to have his oracle, makes me deem the above trans- lation more probable. 124 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VI. Among most mortals, and temples be robbed : Then after these things shall the Tenth Generation appear 15 When the Sender of earthquakes and lightnings Shall break the zeal for idols, and agitate [the] people u Of seven-hilled Rome, and great wealth shall perish, Consumed in a vast conflagration by Vulcan's flame. And thereafter [shall be] bloody [drops] descending from heaven,18 i» • • « • • • But the whole world of countless men Having gone mad shall destroy each other; and, amidst the confusion, God shall send famines and pestilences and thunderbolts Upon men who unjustly condemn rightful actions. There shall be a failure of men on the whole earth, 25 So that whoever sees a man's track on the ground shall wonder. Then once more shall the Great God who dwells in Heaven Be everywhere the Preserver of practical-monotheists.20 17 Kabv, people. In Jewish phraseology this is used almost exclusively for "the Jews" (see Appendix, Note B, § I. No. 13). The writer may have had in mind a religious excitement among his own people at Rome, or, contrary to Jewish use, he may by "people " have meant the Gentile population of Rome. If so, he may either mean that God had startled them, or he may by mentally contrasting the "Senate" with its com- mon adjunct, the " Populus ftomanus," have used the Greek word Xaos as a translation of populus, people. In this case he referred, not to a spasm of fright among Romans in general, but to a religious excitement among the common people as contrasted with the aristocracy. 18 Dio Cassius (51, 17 ; 63, 26) mentions bloody rain in the years B. c. 30 and A. d. 68. Touching the latter, he says that in one locality even streams of blood were the result, which means probably that some streams of water were more or less discolored by it. Light may be thrown on such an occurrence by the following extract : " The Neapoli- tans were rather shocked a few weeks ago to find their streets stained with red and their garments spotted with sanguinary-looking drops. A shower of red dust-specks had beeen drawn up by the wind from African deserts, and borne with it across the Mediterranean. This is not an unprece- dented phenomenon. A shower of insects fell at Araches, in Savoy, last January, which, upon examination, proved to be of a species peculiar to Middle France ; and a few years back Turin was visited by millions of larvae of a fly found nowhere but in the island of Sardinia." — Harper's Weekly, June 5, 1869, p. 359. 19 The absence of any verb from the preceding line renders it probable that something has been left out here. 20 On the meaning of evcre^-qs, see Appendix, Note B, § I. 5. §n.5.] BELIEF OF ROME'S IMPENDING DESTRUCTION. 125 And thereafter shall be deep peace and [sound] understanding, And the fruitful earth shall again bear various fruits, 30 Not being divided [by hostile factions] nor enslaved. But every harbor and roadstead shall be free to men,21 As it originally was, and shamelessness shall be destroyed." Sibyl. Orac. 2, 6 - 33. No. 5. The year A. D. 70 seems among the most likely to have originated the present piece. Possibly the first two lines may allude to one of the vessels sent by Ves- pasian to provision the city.22 It may have borne a purple or a gilded dragon's head for its beak, or have been fashioned, in some way, like a dragon.23 If this surmise 21 The civil war operated as a barrier to commerce. See an extract from Tacitus, Hist. 3, 48, quoted in next note. 22 Vespasian was in the East when he was proclaimed emperor. After a victory by the forces under one of his generals, we are told that Ves- pasian "proceeded with greater speed to Alexandria, that as Vitellius could no longer keep the field, he might distress the capital, dependent as it was on foreign supplies, by famine. With this view he also pur- posed by land and sea to invade Africa [i. e. Tunis and the adjacent country], which lay on the same side, in order to cause famine and dissen- sions by stopping the supplies of provisions." — Tacitus, Hist. 3, 48, Bonn's trans. Vitellius perished about the end of December, and there was therefore no longer any need of starving out the city of Rome ; but we learn from Tacitus that "the city was plunged in grief, and perplexed with mani- fold apprehensions. . . . Because the ships were detained by the severity of the winter, the populace, who are accustomed to buy food from day to day, and concern themselves about the price of provisions, . . . believed that the coast was barred, and the transport of provisions prohibited." — Tacitus, Hist. 4, 38, Bohn's trans. Knowledge of this state of things must have been communicated to Vespasian, for we again learn from Tacitus that he "then committed to the still tempestuous sea some of the swiftest of his ships, laden with corn ; and well it was he did, for the city was then tottering under a state of things so critical that the corn in the granaries was sufficient for no more than ten days' supply, when the stores from Vespasian came in to their aid." — Tacitus, Hist. 4, 52, Bohn's trans. 23 The dragon was afterwards, if not in a. d. 70, a common military standard for each cohort, as the eagle was for a legion. See Smith, 126 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VI. be correct, the piece probably belongs to the early part of A. D. 70. " When a seemingly flame-colored dragon shall traverse the waters, Bearing abundance within it, and shall nourish thy children During famine and civil war, 90 The end of the world is near, and the last day, And to the called and proven vindication from the Immortal God. But first there shall be inexorable anger for the Romans, A bloodthirsty time and a miserable life shall come. Alas, alas for you, Italian land, great and barbarous nation, 95 You understand not, that, whence you came naked and unworthy To the light of the sun, to the same region Shall you go naked, and finally shall come to judgment As having judged unjustly; You alone with your giant-hands over the whole earth. 100 Falling from your height, you shall dwell under the earth. Through naphtha, asphalt, and sulphur, and much fire Shall you be made to vanish, and shall be ashes, eternally Burning. And whoever looks shall hear lamentable Bellowing from the Underworld, and a great gnashing of teeth, 105 And a beating of your atheist breasts with your hands. 21 • ■ • • • Adorn yourselves with images of gold and silver And jewelled ones, that you may come to the bitter day. Contemplate your first punishment, 0 Rome, and your howling. 125 No longer under your slave-yoke shall a neck be placed By Syrian, or Greek, or Barbarian, or any other nation. You shall be utterly plundered, and suffer reprisals for your deeds. Wailing, you shall give till you have paid back all, And be a subject of triumph to the world and disgraced before all." Sibyl. Orac. 8, 88-130. No. 6. These lines stand at present in close sequence on the foregoing. Uncertainty as to whether they originally belonged to them induces me to assign them a distinct heading. Diet, of Antiq, p. 1044, b. From the identification of the Roman power with a flame-colored — or, perhaps, a gold-colored — dragon by the author of the Apocalypse (Rev. 12, 3), who wrote at about this date, I surmise that it was already an emblem .of Roman authority. 24 The omitted lines 107-122 dilate on the equality of all in Hades. They may either belong to the present piece or to some other production which the Byzantine Harmonist (see Appendix, Note A, foot-note 123) wished to collate. § II. 8.] BELIEF OF ROME'S IMPENDING DESTRUCTION. 127 " And thenceforward the sixth 25 generation of Latin kings, Will fill out [their] allotted26 life and will give up the sceptres." Sibyl. Orac. 8, 131 - 132. NO. 7. The following is found amidst various denunciations of Gentile cities and lands, collated perhaps by the Byzantine Harmonist. What pertains to Judaea may have been written between A. d. 65 and a. d. 70, whilst the Eoman armies were in that country. What applies to Rome is apposite enough to the same period. Both pieces may originally have constituted different parts of one and the same effusion, though this is not certain. " Spare, O Father of all, the productive region, the fruitful, Great Judsea, that we may deliver thy decrees ; For thou hast recognized it by thy favors as the chief, That it may appear to all mortals thy darling, And may itself notice how bountiful God has been to it. • • • ■ ■ Italy, thrice wretched thou shalt remain a total desert, unwept, A murderous serpent, in the fruitful earth, to be thoroughly exter- minated." Sibyl. OraC. 5, 328-332, 342, 343. No. 8. The following piece belongs probably to the time of Hadrian. The writer, however, must have ignored, or overlooked, the fact that Egypt became a Roman prov- ince after the time of Julius Caesar, who, doubtless, was reckoned as one of the fifteen kings.27 Under No. 9, the identification of Hadrian as the fifteenth king is obvious. " As it is decreed, — In the course of time, "When thrice five kings shall have ruled Egypt 25 The sixth king means Vespasian (see the Jewish or Oriental method of counting in the Appendix, Note E), but the plural phrase- ology implies that the writer mentally associated Titus with him. 26 The omission of one letter, so as to read vcrrarov for vardriov, might permit the translation, "fill out extreme life," that is, the concluding term of mankind's existence. 27 If we adopt the method of counting emperors which drops out Galba, Otho, and Vitellius (see Appendix, Note E), the piece would belong to the time of Commodus ; but its contents do not agree with such a date. 128 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VI. And [the time] arrive of the five-century Phoenix, A race shall come that it may plunder ' The People/ M 140 A nation [to plunder] the unscattered tribes of Hebrews.29 Warriors shall plunder warriors. Mars shall destroy the boasting Roman threats. The once flourishing government of Rome is destroyed, Of Rome, the former queen over neighboring cities. No longer shall the army of luxurious Rome be victorious. 145 When the Conqueror from Asia shall come with his host, And shutting in these [forces ?], shall enter the city. Thrice three hundred and forty-eight Years shalt thou fulfil, when there shall come on thee Evil fate, overpowering thee and fulfilling thy name.80 iso " Alas for me miserable, when I shall see that day Of thine, 0 Rome, and of all the Latins. Jest if thou wilt at him, with his hidden spears, From Asia, who is mounting the Trojan chariot, Whose mind is furious. But when he shall have pierced the Isth- mus,31 155 Watching around, — attacking all, — leaving the sea behind him, — 28 The original is corrupted ; for iropdrjcruv read iropd-qaov, and for \auv read \cl6p or else the Attic form XeQv. The Hebrew parallelism of the passage will become more visible by arranging the Greek in accordance with the above translation, without reference to metre, thus : — "H£ei iropd-qcrov \abv ytvos, "AKpiTa ; calls the universe (p. 409) his temple ; (compare Clement of Alexandria, Stromatct, 5, 75) ; regards the body {Ibid.) as a prison (compare extracts from Clement of Alexandria and Arnobius in Underworld Mission, Note E of the Appendix) ; con- nects {Ibid.) the terms dixaioavvr] and ewefieia, which, in Jewish phra- seology, mean righteousness and practical monotheism, and mentions (p. 408) Toirov iipiaixhov, the "Allotted Place," a term technical among semi-Jewish Christians (see Barnabas and Irenceus, cited in Underworld Mission, p. 123; 3d edit. p. 118), and probably, therefore, among Jews, as a place for righteous souls. It represents (p. 410) that the Deity dwells in, or is identified with, the sphere of the fixed stars, that is, the highest heaven, and mentions (pp. 386, 412) periodical deluges and conflagrations which must occur at their Copta^vov xpovov, appointed time. Part of these views may have been borrowed at second-hand from disciples of the Jews. The verses from Erythrse represented the care of iEneas for his parent and child as a practical recognition of God. Cicero, intentionally no doubt, misdefmes eu. This last statement means that they testified under oath to their not having the requisite pecuniary or other qualifications. Dio is certainly mistaken when he assigns ancestral misfortune, and consequent humility, as the motive of these men. Only five years pre- viously, in the reorganization of the Senate, multitudes were unwilling to be left out, and great dissatisfaction was occasioned by their omission. Misfortunes "to their ancestors " cannot have been numerous during these five years. It would seem as if the measures of Augustus had eliminated the more conscientious, or popular senators, so that he either became ashamed of the residuum, or found it politically too weak for his purposes, and that new members, when chosen, had either too much con- science, or too much respect for popular feeling, to take a seat. Compul- sion became requisite (Dio Cass. 54, 26) as a means of filling the Senate. §vm.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, B. C. 18 - A. D. 2. 163 be a consul.62 He probably saw, that to accept it would render him the executive of decrees which his moral sense repudiated. That, throughout the preceding struggle, monotheism and popular rights must, as usual, have been allies, and joint objects of patrician animosity, is plain from a num- ber of circumstances. In the first place it is noteworthy that, promptly after the senatorial expurgation, Agrippa, the leader and im- personation of patricianism, went for four years to Asia and Judsea, the stronghold of Judaism. This is precisely where we should expect him to go, if a blow were aimed at monotheism or at such Greek views as originated in it, so that its chief supporters needed to be soothed63 or watched. If, on the other hand, Augustus were engaged 62 " Labeo, when the consulship was offered him by Augustus, refused the honor." — Digesta, Book 1, tit. 2, [§] 2, IT 47, in the Corpus Juris Civilis, Vol. 1, col. (of the Digest.) 8 ; quoted also in Smith, Diet, of Biog. Vol. 1, p. 599, col. 2, where the et should have been in brackets. 63 Agrippa is said by Josephus (Antiq. 16, 2, l) to have feasted the Jews and to have offered a hecatomb of sacrifices. He also, if we may trust Philo (Embassy to Caius, c. 37, Paris edit. p. 726), must have been profuse in his laudation of the temple, of the high-priest's adornments, and of whatever could flatter Jewish vanity. The gifts to the temple, made professedly by his wife Julia, the daughter of Augustus, may have been his own at this date, or she may have belonged to "the many " who were imbued with reverence for Judaism, and her gifts may have been at some other time. Philo, who mentions them (Embassy to Caius, c. 40, Paris edit. p. 729), gives us no clue to the date at which they were made. Agrippa, in the second of his four years' stay in Asia, made a brief ex- pedition to Pontus, the narrative of which in Josephus (Antiq. 16, 2, 2) makes no mention of fighting. Herod seems to have come to him promptly, and to have acted repeatedly in Asia Minor as mediator between Agrippa and the provincials (Josephus, Antiq. 16, 2, 2, 3), paying, in some cases, the taxes of the latter to Caesar out of his own pocket. All this is very natural if the difficulties were with Jews. It is anything but natural if they were between the Roman government and heathens. Herod con- sulted unscrupulously his own interests, not those of Judaism. He and Agrippa constituted themselves, in public, a mutual-laudation society, to the disgust, doubtless, of not a few among their auditors. \ 164 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. in a purely political contest of a local character, Agrippa was the very man whom he needed at Borne, and with whose services there he could not at this juncture have dispensed. Secondly : the heathens, even in Asia, must have under- stood a blow to be aimed at the Jews, for they immediately commenced annoying them in various ways, equally as after the direct action against them in the years A. D. 19 and 41. This we can learn from the edicts which at once became necessary for repression of such annoyance,64 — 64 Josephus, who consciously or ignorantly misuses these documents as evidence that the Jews had been honored in times past, arranges them in his Antiquities (16, 6, 2-7) according to the dignity of the writer, beginning with Augustus. For the reader's convenience I will endeavor to number them chroDologically as nearly as I can. 1. Agrippa to the Magistrates, Senate, and People of the Ephesians. 2. Agrippa to the Sen- ate, Magistrates, and People of Cyrene. This letter alludes to a statement of the Jews that Augustus had already written to Flavius, the pretor of Libya, for the same purpose, which letter seems not to have produced its full effect. 3. Csesar to Norbanus Flaccus. 4. Cains Norbanus Flaccus, proconsul, to the Magistrates of the Sardians, stating the purport of the foregoing letter of Csesar. 5. Julius Antonius, proconsul, to the Magis- trates, Senate, and People of the Ephesians. This Antony was doubtless that son of Mark Antony who was consul in the year b. c. 10. The honors obtained for him would naturally follow some gradation, the lesser ones earlier, and the more important ones afterward. It is probable, therefore, that he was proconsul earlier than B. c. 10. But he alludes in his missive to the acts of Agrippa, who left Asia b. o. 13, so that if we place his proconsulship in b. c. 12 or 11, we shall at least have better reasons for the date than for any other which can be selected. 6. A de- cree of Augustus which seems to be a general one, not addressed to any particular community, though a copy of it was to be put up in the temple of Augustus at Ancyra. In this missive Augustus calls himself high- priest, which he first became in the year b. c. 13 or 12. If we may judge from the fact that Josephus gives these letters and decrees in one connec- tion, the probability is that the decree of Augustus was issued within a year or two after he became high-priest, or possibly in the same year. None of these decrees grant the Jews any new privileges. They pro- tect them against theft of their sacred books and temple-offerings ; against prohibition of their assemblies and interference with their observance of the Sabbath. In an earlier passage (Antiq. 16, 2, 3- 5) Josephus narrates § viii.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, B. C. 18 - A. D. 2. 165 edicts similar to those called forth by the years above mentioned. If we now seek more direct manifestations of anti- Jewish action by the ruling powers, we find that imme- diately after expurgation of the Senate, access of any one was prohibited to the monotheistic or Sibylline writ- ings in its archives.65 Nothing could be accomplished, it seems, against the same class of writings, outside, without co-operation of the Pontifex Maximus. But this officer was Lepidus, who, to the chagrin of reactionaries, re- tained his position determinedly, in spite of every annoy- ance from the opposite faction.66 Friends of monotheism and popular rights doubtless counselled him to persevere. When he died, in B. c. 13 or 12, Augustus became high- priest, and at once seized and burned two thousand copies of various Sibylline works. No one was allowed for the future to own any such document.67 Whether a plea made before Agrippa, in behalf of the Jews, by an orator named Nicolaus, whom Herod had selected for that purpose. The grievances specified are essentially the same, and, if we may trust Josephus, were not denied by the heathens. To a reader experienced in popular disputes and collisions there will be ground for reflection in the fact that Herod, an ally of patricianism, selected this orator. Had the Jews selected their own advocate, he might have made demands which Agrippa would have had no wish to grant, and complaints which he would have been disin- clined to rectify. 65 "He (Augustus) commanded that the Sibylline utterances tin) which had become illegible by age should be copied by the priests with their own hands, so that no other person might read them." — Dio Cass. 54, 17. This order of course must be understood of those in public custody. It was given in b. c. 18. 66 Augustus not only himself treated Lepidus with contumely, but subjected him to the same at the hands of his satellites (Dio Cass. 54, 15). He also tried by legerdemain to have him omitted from the reconstituted Senate, probably as a step towards declaring him disqualified for longer continuance in the high-priesthood. Dio Cass. 54, 15. 67 Augustus " after having assumed, on the death of Lepidus, the office of chief priest, which he had never ventured to take away from him while living, collected from all sides and burned to the number of more than two thousand, whatever prophetic books of Greek and Latin origin were 166 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. the penalty of death for disobedience were affixed at this or at a later date cannot certainly be determined.68 The reason assigned for this action — namely, that many fol- lies gained currency through the established reputation of these books — would have had more appearance of being the true one if access to the senatorial collec- tion,°instead of being denied, had been previously ren- dered easy, so that outside documents might be corrected by those in the authorized collection. * The initiatory step against this literature in B. c. 18 or in common circulation without professed, or of unreliable, authorship, nul- lis vel parum idoneis auctoribus, retaining the Sibylline books alone, and of these only a selection, which he deposited in two gilded chests (or perhaps bookcases) in the basement of the Palatine Apollo." — Sueto- nius, August, c. 31. Tacitus quotes a statement made, as he alleges, by- Tiberius in writing to the Roman Senate, "that because many follies were circulated under the established reputation, sub nomine celebri (of the Sibylline books), Augustus had decreed a day within which they must be brought to the city pretor, and that it should be unlawful for any private individual to have them." — Tacitus, Annals, 6, 12. That follies were thus circulated is plain. That these were made a pretext for suppressing the books is natural. That Tiberius cited such action ap- provingly is improbable, for he was a stout friend of free discussion. Tacitus (see Note G, § v. ) does not hesitate at falsely attributing to him an indorsement of aristocratic hobbies which disgusted him. 68 "Through the inspiration of wicked demons [that is, of heathen deities who feared the overthrow of their power from the teachings con- tained in these books] death was decreed against those who read the books of Hystaspes or Sibylla, or the Prophets, that by fear they may turn away men who are about to attain to a knowledge of good things and keep them in servitude to themselves. But this they are not able to carry out, for we not only fearlessly read them, but offer them, as you see, to your examination, knowing that they will prove acceptable to all." — Justin Martyr, Apolog. 1, 44. If the decree of Augustus was levelled against prophetical books in general, it might afterwards be con- strued to include the Old Testament prophets, whose writings Justin mentions as forbidden. In the year a. d. 19, however, it is probable enough that a perusal of the Old Testament may have been forbidden to Gentiles under penalty of death. A Roman certainly, if caught reading it, would from that year forward, whenever the aristocracy were in power, have fared hardly. §vih.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, B. C. 18 -A. D. 2. 167 17 was accompanied by a patrician fraud in the name of Sibylla. This Greek document, elsewhere described,09 bears evidence, not merely of non-Jewish, but of anti- Jewish, authorship, and corroborates other evidence of an anti-Jewish movement by the aristocracy. Neither they nor Augustus, whom they controlled, showed any desire to have these lines secreted. On the contrary, Horace was requested to translate them in an ode to be publicly sung. Sibylla, when favoring reaction, was to be heard ; when teaching monotheism she was to be suppressed. A comment is elsewhere offered 70 on the omission from these lines of any attention to Saturn. Considered in connection with part of the Erythrsean verses and with popular misinterpretation thereof, this omission seems reactionary. Some modifications by Horace of the trans- lated lines show that he was not wholly subservient to the ruling class, and perhaps that public opinion would not permit him to be so.71 One feature of his Ode throws remarkable light on the powerful impression which Jewish anticipations of Eome's impending down- fall had made on the Roman mind. Horace, a court poet, in the flush of a patrician victory, when the object was to replace the national or patrician gods in public esti- mation, does not venture to claim that they, if properly propitiated, will preserve to Rome her present power, but merely that Italy shall remain under her control. Another blow at monotheism, dealt, as already men- tioned, so soon as Augustus acquired the chief-priesthood, was an order that every senator, before proceeding to senatorial business, should offer frankincense.72 Con- scientious monotheists would, under such a rule, be de- barred from attending the sittings of the Senate. This was doubtless one, if not the main object of the rule. 69 See Appendix, Note A, § vi. 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Dio Cassius (54, 30) places this decree in the year b. c. 12. Sueto- nius mentions (Augustus, c. 35) that the offering was to be made to that god \n whose temple they were, for the time being, assembled. 168 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. Its only other supposable purpose would have been a show of respect, which no one really felt, for the old religion ; and this show was unlikely to be instituted unless an opposing — which could scarce have been aught save a monotheistic — party existed in the Senate. During, or not long after, these six years (b. c. 18-12) of embittered contest is the most probable epoch in which to locate an incident in the life of Augustus, preserved to us by the Lexicon of Suidas, without any date. " Augus- tus, having sacrificed, asked Pythia [the oracle of Apollo] who should reign after him; and [the oracle] an- swered : — " A Hebrew slave, holding control over the blessed gods, orders me To leave this house and return to the Underworld. Depart in silence, therefore, from our altars." 73 The custom of consulting an oracle, if we may rely on Strabo's remark in our tenth section, must by this time have so far died out, that the action of Augustus can only be regarded as an effort to galvanize the appearance of life into what was practically dead. The answer to him may have been contrived by a zealous religionist, or by some stout-hearted champion of popular rights, who cared nothing for religion. In either case, the response must have been suggested by the anti-monotheistic procedures of Augustus, and the individual who ventured to p;ive it must have anticipated active support from public opinion. Compare Note A, foot-note 124. A monotheistic response which the Cohortatio ad Graecos mentions as given by a heathen oracle bears no evidence, as in the foregoing case, of virulent antago- nism. It may belong to the present or to a different period ; but hardly to any date after the introduction of 73 The reader should emphasize the word slave if he would realize the intended contempt for heathen deities. Some of the aristocracy, in their zeal to exclude Tiberius, the friend of popular rights, may have prompted the question of Augustus. They doubtless preconcerted an answer, for which the above was adroitly substituted. If answers were in writing, as questions seem to have been (see Ch. X. note 53), this could be effected with less risk than if they were viva voce. § viii.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, B. C. 18 -A. D. 2. 169 Christianity, since, if so, a Christian would not have quoted it approvingly.74 The anti-monotheistic efforts of the reactionaries dur- ing this period were directed in more ways than one towards giving an appearance of life to heathenism. Augustus " re-established, also, some of the ancient ceremonials which had gradually been done away, as the augury for [public] safety ; the priesthood of Jupiter ; the Lupercalia ; the Secular and Compitalician games." 75 How little all this availed towards making men prefer heathenism to monotheism will be seen in the next and in almost each succeeding period. The cause of monotheism and that of popular rights appear in this, as in other periods, to have been conjoined with tli at of morality. It is, of course, probable that either of these two allies found advocates whose morality was below, or not above, the average. Yet among mono- theists morality was an object of culture, and in the popular party it met with less ridicule and more active support than among partisans of aristocracy. The court circle, in which writings such as some of Horace's circu- lated, must have been devoid of shame. Augustus, though not a debauchee, was not a moralist, nor, at this period certainly, did his influence favor morality. In B. c. 18 he " ordained rather severe penalties for unmar- ried men and-women ; and, on the other hand, established rewards for marriage and the production of children." 76 74 "When some one, according to your own (i. e. heathen) accounts, asked from one of your own oracles, ' What men had become recognizers of God,' you yourselves say that the oracle responded: — ' Only Chaldeans and Hebrews have obtained wisdom, Reverencing in purity God the self-born king. ' " Cohortatio ad Graecos, c. 11 ; compare c. 24. Unless the word translated and mean even or namely, this would imply that Chaldeans had adopted monotheism. 75 Suetonius, Augustus, c. 31. The secular games took place, as we have seen, in b. c. 17. The priesthood of Jupiter, which had died out in b. c. 87, seems, from Dio Cassius (54, 36) to have been re-established in B. c. 11. Among the priesthoods of individual gods it was the highest. 76 Dio Cass. 54, id. 8 170 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. This law, however, must have impeded, rather than aided, a healthy moral sentiment.77 Its provisions showed that its framers appreciated neither marriage nor morality, and the law itself strikingly illustrates reactionary views on these subjects. Complaint was made in the Senate over the prevailing dissoluteness among women and young men as a preventive to marriage, and Augustus was urged to rectify this also. The remarks, Dio tells us, were intended as a reflection on his conduct. He at first replied, that " what was most needful had already been enacted, and the remainder could not be in like manner surrendered [to legal supervision ?]." 78 Human experi- ence has evinced that legislation can at best but mitigate, not obviate, immoralitv. The first of the above two statements was, however, incorrect, and Augustus, when pressed, showed that he was talking at random.79 § IX. Schools of Law. The preceding contest gave rise, or prominence, to two schools of law which confronted each other for at least a century and a half, and more probably for three centu- 77 The law affixed penalties to a divorced woman if she remained un- married more than six months ; also to a widow if she remained unmar- ried more than a year. A legacy to a bachelor was void unless he qualified himself for its acceptance by getting married within one hundred days. These provisions were somewhat mitigated in A. D. 9, by an extension of time. See Smith, Diet, of Antiq. p. 692, col. 1, under Lex Julia and Lex Papia Poppoea. The law seems to have ignored affection, mutual respect, and moral sense as a basis for marriage, and to have considered it merely with reference to increase of population. 78 Dio Cass. 54, 16. 73 "Being pressed, he said, 'You ought to admonish and command your wives what you think proper, as I do.' Hearing this they urged him the more, wishing to learn the admonitions which he professed to have given Livia ; and he, though against his will, stated something con- cerning dress and other ornamentation, and concerning going out and womanly modesty, regardless of the fact that his statements were not believed." — Dio Cass. 54, 10. Moralists who most appreciated social corruption were least likely to find relief in rendering Augustus ridiculous, however natural such action may have been in political opponents. §ix.] SCHOOLS OF LAW. 171 ries, until Christianity became dominant.80 These claim a slight interruption in our chronological narrative. Capito, favored by Augustus, was the advocate of the privileged classes, and therefore of Ancient Usage ; Labeo upheld equity and human rights. The verdict of posterity con- cerning them may be inferred from the following state- ments : " Notwithstanding the great legal reputation of Capito, not a single pure extract from any of his works occurs in the Digest, though there are a few quotations from him at second hand." 81 " The extracts from Labeo in the Digest occupy about twelve pages [as printed] in Hommel's Pcdingcnesia Pandectarum. They are sixty in number. But the name of Labeo occurs in other passages of the Digest no fewer than five hundred and forty-one times." 82 J. T. Graves, author of articles on Capito and Labeo, says that " the conclusions of Capito's school seem, in a majority of instances, to have prevailed in practice."83 This, in consideration of what has already been said, can hardly mean more than that, during the influence of a heathen aristocracy and under their pet emperors, the school of ancient usage bore sway. When 80 "After him (Tubero) Anteius Capito . . . and Antistius Labeo were regarded as the highest authorities. . . . These two first established what might be called different schools ; for Anteius Capito adhered persistently to tradition ; Labeo, by mental constitution, ingcnii qualitate, and by the confidence which his learning inspired, — for he had studied largely outside of his profession, — commenced many innovations." — Pompo- nius, quoted in Digest 1, 2, 2, 47. ' ' There is no proof that there was ever a distinct middle school." — Smith, Diet, of Biog. Vol. 1, p. 601, col. 2. To the school of Capito belonged Masurius Sabinus, Caius Cassius Longinus, Cselius Sabinus, Priscus Javolenus, Aburnus Valens, Tuscianus, and Julianus. To that of Labeo belonged Nerva (the father), Proculus, Nerva (the son), another Longinus, Pegasus, Celsus (the father), Celsus (the son), and Priscus Neratius. The friendship of the elder Nerva for Tiberius implies that he adhered to, not, as some suppose (Smith, Diet, of Biog. Vol. 1, p. 601, col. 2), that he swerved from the school of Labeo. For the above list, see Digest 1, 2, 2, 47. 81 Smith, Diet, of Biog. Vol. 1, p. 600, col. 1. 82 Same work, Vol. 2, p. 693, col. 1. 83 Smith, Diet, of Biog. Vol. 1, pp. 601, 602. 172 JUDAISM AT ROME. CH. VII. heathenism was overthrown, Capito was soon neglected. He seems — judging from the incidents recorded in Taci- tus — to have been mentally and morally a man of small calibre,84 though party spirit, correctly or incorrectly, gave him the credit of great learning. Labeo's methodical industry, added to his other quali- fications, must have rendered him invaluable to the ad- vocates of legal reform.85 The remark of Horace, " more crazy than Labeo" 86 shows how he was viewed by patri- cian conservatives. Neither Hadrian nor his successor, Antoninus Pius, were devotees of the privileged classes.87 Possibly the distinc- 84 Ennius, a Roman knight, was charged in A. D. 22 with treason, because he had melted a silver statue of Tiberius. The justice and good sense of the latter forbade his prosecution. Capito treated the emperor's refusal as an interference with senatorial rights and a permission for crime against the republic. Tacitus, after narrating these circumstances, adds that : " Capito's infamy [in this] attracted more attention, because, versed as he was in law human and divine, he dehonestavisset had brought re- proach upon an eminent public [that is, upon the aristocracy] and on the bonas artes professional skill of his house [or in other words, of himself]." — Annals, 3, 70. This means that the reactionaries treated Capito's over- zeal as a political blunder which had cost standing to them and prestige to him. 85 " Labeo . . . divided the year so that he should be six months with his students at Rome and for six months be absent [in the country] de- voting himself to writing books." — Digest. 1, 2, 47. 86 If Horace, as some think, wrote his Satire before Labeo was of an age to attract attention, he may have subsequently retouched it. He alludes evidently to the great reformer. " If any one should crucify his slave because, when ordered to take his plate away, he had tasted the half-eaten fishes and half-cold sauce, [such a one], though more insane than Labeo, would be reckoned among sane men." — Sat. 1, 3, 80-83. The community in which such a case could even be supposed needed reformation of its laws. 87 "Hadrian decided that they (the decisions of jurists) should have the force of law, provided the respondents all agreed in their answers ; but if they differed the judge was at liberty to adhere to whichever opinion he preferred." — Saiidars, Introduct. to Institutes of Justinian, p. 18 ; where reference is given to Gaius, 1, 7. §ix.] SCHOOLS OF LAW. 173 tion of schools became less prominent under the latter. If so, the aristocracy must have found it more difficult to regain control of legal decisions than of political power. Pomponius, however, lived near the middle of the second century, and his list, already given, would naturally ter- minate with jurists of the preceding generation. Legal decisions were certainly in a state of change until after Christianity had gained the ascendency,88 and it is likely that heathen views found legal defenders so long as hea- thenism had power. In effecting legal reform the chief aid afforded by monotheism must have been through the strength which it imparted to the individual and public conscience, and through the feeling of human brotherhood which it in- spired. Yet aside from this, the influence of Judaism upon the Greek Stoics seems to have reacted upon Eoman law.89 There were perhaps two reasons for this. Firstly : 88 << jf we compare the Institutes of Justinian with those of Gaius, we find changes in the law of marriage, in that of succession, and in many other branches of law, in which it is not difficult to recognize the spirit of humanity and reverence for natural ties which Christianity had in- spired."— Sandars, Introduct. to Institutes of Justinian, p. 21. 89 " By far the most important addition to the system of Roman law which the jurists introduced from [Judaism mingled with .?] Greek philos- ophy was the conception of the lex naturae.. We learn from the writings of Cicero whence this conception came, and what was understood by it. It came from the Stoics, and especially from Chrysippus. By natura, for which Cicero sometimes substitutes mundus, was meant the universe of things, and this universe the Stoics declared to be guided by reason. . . . By lex naturaz, therefore, was meant primarily the determining force of the universe, a force inherent in the universe by its constitution {lex est natural vis). But man has reason, and as reason cannot be two- fold, the ratio of the universe must be the same as the ratio of man, and the lex naturaz will be the law by which the actions of man are to be guided, as well as the law directing the universe. Virtue, or moral ex- cellence, may be described as living either in accordance with reason, or with the law of the universe. These notions worked themselves into Roman law, and the practical shape they took was that morality, so far as it could come within the scope of judges, was regarded as enjoined by law. . . . "When a rigid adherence to the doctrines of the jus civile threat- 174 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. amoDg opponents of long-established error there are always some who lay more stress on opinions of a re- putedly learned foreigner than on the carefully exercised judgments of themselves and neighbors. Again : there is a disposition in some minds to support new views by clothing them in established phraseology. This class must have been thankful for the Stoic phrase " Law of [universal] Nature." It enabled them when opposing legal abominations to regard themselves as upholding, not as overturning, established law.90 They did not per- ceive that in their mouths the phrase lacked meaning.91 ened to do a moral wrong, and produce a result that was not equitable, then the lex naturce was supposed to operate, and the pretor, in accord- ance with its dictates, provided a remedy by means of the pliant forms of the pretoria n actions. Gradually the cases, as well as the modes in which he would thus interfere, grew more and more certain and recog- nized, and thus a body of equitable principles was introduced into the Eoman law. The two great agents in modifying and extending the old, rigid, narrow system of the jus civile were thus the jus gentium and the lex naturce ; that is, generalizations from the legal system of other na- tions, and morality looked on according to the philosophy of the Stoics as sanctioned by a law. . . . The jus gentium and lex naturce were each the complement of the other, and were often looked on by the jurists as making one whole, to which the term jus gentium was generally applied." — Sandars (except the insertion in brackets), Introduct. to Institutes of Justinian, pp. 13, 14. Sandars refers to Cicero, De Leg. 1, 6-12 ; De Nat. Deor. 1, 14 ; 2, 14, 31 ; De Fin. 4, 7. 90 " Law is the Supreme Reason dwelling in nature which orders what is proper to be done and prohibits the contrary." — Cicero, De Legibus, 1, 6. 91 A Stoic, while believing in a moral intelligence which animated and ruled the universe, could by the Lex Natural, Law of [universal] Na- ture, or, as Cicero sometimes words it, Lex Mundi, Law of the Uni- verse, mean approximately what a Jew would have understood by the "Will of God. To other heathens, who deemed nature or the imiverse inanimate, its decisions on legal or moral questions must have been im- aginary. §x.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 2-14. 175 § X. A. D.I- 14. Augustus recedes from ultra-Patri- cianism. The year in which our last chronological section ended and the present one begins witnessed the first step of Augustus towards retreating out of reactionary influence. His emancipation, for a time at least, was but partial. Eight years before this date Tiberius had been — infor- mally, perhaps — banished, and had gone to Ehodes. There he seems to have lived a quiet life of self-improvement, attending lectures, visiting the sick, and sometimes recon- ciling those who had quarrelled. Augustus, who had felt the need of a thoughtful, unselfish adviser, recalled him in A. D. 2, and though this could not reverse what patri- cianism had accomplished, yet it mitigated the consequent evils. In scrutinizing the effect thus far produced upon the community by efforts at reaction, we shall find that monotheism, if excluded from the Senate, must, outside of that body, have had strong hold on the upper as well as the common classes. It would be unsafe to infer that every one who — even without political motive — paid his devotions at Jerusalem was a monotheist. Yet, if Augustus thanked his grandson for not doing so,92 we can feel assured that monotheism commanded the belief of many, and the respect of still more, among the higher classes. Augustus would hardly have commended in his grandson a course which was but the common, or univer- sal, one in the class to which he belonged. A passage of Strabo, published in this epoch, tells us : "Soothsaying of all kinds, and oracles, were especially honored by the ancients, but are now oppressed by much contempt, the Romans being satisfied with the oracles of Sibylla and Etruscan divinations. . . . Where- fore the Oracle of Ammon has nearly died out." 93 In 92 Suetonius, Augustus, c. 93, quoted in Ch. V. note 130. This jour- ney must have taken place from somewhere in B. c. 1 to A. D. 4. In the former year Caius went to Asia. In February of the latter year he died. 93 Strabo, Geographic*, 17, 1, 43 ; pp. 1134, 1135, edit. Meineke. 176 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. determining whether this tendency were chiefly owing to general enlightenment, or to the progress of monotheism, we can derive some light from the leaders of the conser- vative, or aristocratic party, who, as will be found under A. D. 41, attribute it to the progress of " Foreign Rites," that is, of Judaism. The probability is, that, even when Strabo wrote, the manifestations of reverence for Etruscan divination were confined to the conservative, and those of reverence for Sibylline teaching to the progressive, party. Still another incident helps to indicate the point at which the contest between monotheism and heathenism had arrived. In A. D. 5 a Vestal Virgin was to be selected. High honors belonged to the office, and yet parents op- posed the placing of their daughters on the list of candi- dates.94 Augustus was vehement to no purpose in trying to change their resolution, and the office had to be opened to women whose parents had once been slaves.95 At a later date ultra conservatives among the aristocracy be- came more desperate in their support of heathen recol- lections, and of departing institutions ; for their action can hardlv be termed either a result or a support of V heathen belief. If we now turn to Livy, whose history belongs approx- imately to this date,96 we shall find ground to query whether some phraseology which he uses, or quotes, did not result from Jewish influences. Before citing it, an 94 Augustus " increased not only the number and dignity of the priests, but also their emoluments, especially of the Vestal Virgins. And when in the place of one who had died another was to be taken, and many made interest that their daughters' names should not be subjected to the [chance of] drawing, he swore that if the age of any one among his granddaughters were sufficient, he would offer her." — Suetonius, Au- gustus, c. 31. 95 " And since the really well-born were unwilling to give their daugh- ters for the priesthood of Vesta, a law was enacted that the daughters of freed persons might hold that office." — Dio Cass. 55, 2-2. 96 Livy was born in b. c. 59, and died in A. d. 17. His history must have been finished after 9 b. c, as it came down to the death of Drusus. §x.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 2-14. 177 explanation is requisite. Ancient writers often put into the mouth of real or supposed speakers arguments appo- site to, or used by, that side which they are regarded as representing, — a custom which has not totally died out in the present century.97 In accordance with this custom, Livy has given us the speech of a patrician lady named Virginia. She had married a plebeian, and the patrician ladies on that account excluded her, in B. c. 296, from some sacred rites. Her dispute with them, and her sub- sequent address to plebeian women, can hardly have been matter of record, but Livy represents her, in the course of the former, as calling herself the " wife of one hus- band," 98 uni nuptum. As the earliest Christian assemblies 97 " There will be found, in the course of this history, several discourses of a certain length. Those I have put in the mouth of the different speakers have really been pronounced by them, and upon those very oc- casions which are treated of in the work. I should, however, mention, that I have sometimes made a single orator say what has been said in substance by others of the same party. Sometimes, also, but rarely, using the liberty granted in all times to historians, I have ven- tured to add A small number of phrases, which appeared to me to coincide perfectly with the sense of the orator and proper to enforce his opinion ; this has appeared especially in the two discourses pronounced before Congress, for and against independence, by Richard Henry Lee and John Dickinson."— Botta, War of Independence, trans, by Otis, p. v; N. Haven edit. 1838. Smyth, in his Lectures on Modern History (Vol. 1, pp. 134-138, Am. edit.), comments on the fabrication of speeches by Hume and by Sir J. Hayward, neither of whom puts his readers on their guard, as does Botta, by stating what he had been doing. Botta's plan is a well-intentioned mistake. The action of Hume and Sir J. Hayward is more culpable, whatever be the palliation sought for it in customs of earlier historians. Yet even their conduct — fabricating speeches to convey what they deemed essentially true — must not be confounded with that of Tacitus, Philo, and others, whose fabricated speeches and conversations are in- tended to make readers believe what they themselves knew to be false. Compare in Appendix, Note G, foot-note 123. 98 Virginia, according to the narrative, proceeded, after her exclusion, to set apart a portion of her own premises, on which she built an altar to "Plebeian Chastity." Then, calling together plebeian matrons, she 8* L 178 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIL were apparently modelled after the Jewish synagogues, Paul's language justifies the supposition that divorced persons were not assigned to prominent positions in the religious assemblies of the Jews." If the words of Livy were copied from documents dating three centuries before the Christian era, they would repre- sent, doubtless, ideas which originated with heathens. If, like many of his narratives, they represent traditions of his own time embellished by himself, they probably result from Jewish views, which had been adopted by the more moral among the Eomans. The 'latter remark does not deny to the heathens moral sense, nor, to a portion of them, appreciation for conjugal fidelity. But their gods were not supposed to take interest in moral wrongs, unless committed against themselves or their favorites. The question deserves investigation by students either of antiquity or of man's moral history, whether the terms " husband of one wife " and " wife of one husband " can be traced in Eoman literature to an earlier date than that of Jewish influence.100 addressed them as follows : " I dedicate this altar to ' Plebeian Chastity,' and exhort you, that, as the men in this state vie with each other in bravery, the matrons should, in like manner, vie in chastity ; and that you should exert yourselves so that this altar may, if possible, be re- garded as having a holier worship and from chaster persons than that one [of Patrician Chastity]." Livy continues : "The religious services of this altar were almost the same as those of that older one ; so that no one save a matron of approved chastity, the wife of one husband, could sacrifice at it." — Livy, 10, 23. 99 " For this object I left thee in Crete that . . . thou shouldst appoint elders in every city ... if any one is blameless, the husband of one wife ... for an overseer, being God's steward, should be blameless." • — Titus, 1,5-7. "An overseer should be blameless, the husband of one wife." — 1 Tim. 3, 2. " Let a woman be deemed a widow [entitled to public support] when not less than sixty years old, the wife of one husband.' — 1 Tim. 5, o. 100 In the Lexicon of Facciolati and Forcellini, under the word pro- nubus, the brideswoman at a marriage is said, in one citation, to have been customarily the wife of one husband. But of the two references, one is to Tertullian, two centuries after the Christian era. Of the other, §xi. CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 14-18. 179 § XL A. D. 14-18. Tiberius Emperor. Patrician Steps towards Rebellion. In A. D. 14 Augustus died, after selecting Tiberius as his successor. The selection was prompted by his appre- ciation of the latter, and amounted to a confession of having been misled by his previous surrounders. Tiberius entered on his duties while an adverse faction controlled both the Senate and most of the public offices. In more than one instance the Senate acted in opposition to him. Its leaders deified Augustus promptly after his death in the hope, apparently, of rendering it sacrilegious for Ti- berius to undo any of the reaction which they had effected through his step-father.101 His position was additionally embarrassed by the fact that his mother sympathized with the aristocratic faction, and, through defects in her "Fest. Varr. apud Serv. ad iEn. 4, 166," I have not means to determine the date, but see no reason for regarding it as earlier than Livy. The office of Flamcn Dialis, priest of Jupiter, died out in b. c. 87, and was revived in b. c. 11, by Augustus. Its incumbent, according to Smith, Diet, of Antiquities, p. 541, col. 1, "could not marry a second time. Hence, since her [his wife's] assistance was essential to the per- formance of certain ordinances, a divorce was not permitted, and if she died, the Dialis was obliged to resign." If the first of these statements means that he must be living with his first wife when appointed to office, — an idea not necessarily implied in Aulus Gellius, 10,15, — then the date when this view originated would become a matter of interest. If first established in the time of Augustus, it would tend to show that the leader of heathenism could not, in his effort to re-establish heathen rites, ignore the Jewish idea of connection between morality and the holding of a. prominent religious position. 101 How immediately the deification of Augustus was used for the pur- pose of tying his successors hands may be inferrred from the following. Already in a. d. 14 (Tac. An. 1, 54) some public players caused a disturb- ance, which broke out more violently, and with considerable loss of life, in a. n. 15. Some wished to have the players whipped. The opposite view prevailed, " because the god Augustus had given his opinion that players were exempt from whipping, nor would it be religiously law- ful for Tiberius to contravene his decisions." — Tacitus, An. 1, 77. Compare in Ch. I. note 9, citation from Dio Cassius. 180 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. character of which they knew how to avail themselves, became their tool to counteract his best efforts. The serious events of this period are clearly connected with those in the next chapter. That this connection may not be interrupted, a piece of party pleasantry will first be narrated. In A. D. 15 a destructive inundation of the Tiber gave occasion to party humorousness. Asinius Gallus moved a consultation of Sibylline books. His political relations 102 imply that his meaning must have been somewhat as follows : " You reactionaries loudly advocate adherence to ancient usage. For once you shall have co-operation from me. Among old customs none was ever better es- tablished than a consultation of Sibylline books in time of physical calamity. I move, as a means of allaying the Tiber, that we thoroughly scrutinize the monotheistic teachings, which you secrete so carefully." The motion was admirably calculated for placing reactionaries in a ludicrous light. Assent to it would render them ridicu- lous ; opposition would prove them insincere. Those against whom it was aimed had been, and continued to be, enemies of Tiberius. Yet he did not join in the jest at their expense, and must even have discouraged any pressing of the motion made by his friend Gallus.103 The 102 Gallus at a later period needed and received from Tiberius a guard, without which his life would have been in danger from the reactionaries. His father — of the anti-senatorial faction, and founder of the first pub- lic library at Rome — was the Pollio to whom Virgil addressed his half- messianic Eclogue, and with whom, according to Josephus, Antiq. 15, 10, l, the young Jewish princes, sons of Herod, abode while in Rome. 103 " Tiberius opposed (the motion of Gallus) as if desirous to conceal things divine and human." — Tacitus, Annals, 1, 76. The phraseology in which this is couched might be understood as the language of super- stition. It is far more probably a dexterous effort of the historian to withdraw attention from the awkward predicament of the conservative party. If they supported a motion to consult the Sibylline Books as a preventive against overflow of the Tiber they must have rendered them- selves a laughing-stock for the community, and have gratified their op- ponents by investigation into a storehouse of an ti -heathen teaching. If §xl] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 14-13. 181 Senate entrusted to a committee of two, Anteius Capito and Lucius Arruntius, the engineering question of a rem- edy for overflows. Both of these were conservatives, and the remedy which they advised proved unacceptable to the popular party, as we may infer from the opposition not merely of the country districts but of Piso, whose subsequent opposition to the senatorial faction cost him his life. We will now turn to political matters, whose culmina- tion, as will appear in the next chapter, was connected with expulsion of Judaism from Rome and the effort to crush its Gentile converts. Germanicus 104 at the date of his uncle's accession com- manded the Roman armies in Germany, and was then already concerned, as it would seem, in a conspiracy against him. He threatened, and almost undoubtedly authorized, a butchery of soldiers whose fidelity to his uncle forbade acquiescence in the plot of himself and of his co-conspirators.105 His effort to move the soldiers bv a they opposed it they would show the insincerity of their professed at- tachment to ancient religious customs. Tacitus wishes his reader to be- lieve, what he is careful not to affirm, that the motion was lost because of opposition from Tiberius. 104 The brother of Tiberius, named Drusus, sympathized with the aris- tocratic party. He died in b. c. 9. His widow Antonia, and his daugh- ter Livilla, married to her cousin, the younger Tiberius, sympathized with the popular party. Of his two surviving sons, Germanicus was active on the patrician side ; the other, Claudius, though an imbecile, was at a later date made emperor by the patricians. 105 Tacitus says of the legions, " Earnest were their hopes that Ger- manicus would never brook the rule of another."— Tac. An. 1, 31, Bohn's trans. The remark may be true of not a few officers. " Germanicus . . . sent letters before him to Csecina, « that he was coming with a powerful force ; and, if they prevented him not by executing the guilty, he would put them to the sword indiscriminately.' These letters Carina privately read to the standard-bearers, the inferior officers, and such of the private soldiers as were least disaffected. . . . The officers, having sounded those they believed fit for their purpose, and found the majority of the legions still to persevere in their duty, at the suggestion of the general, settled a time for putting to the sword all the most depraved and turbulent ; then, 182 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. show of suicide was no more successful than his efforts at compulsion. One of the soldiers composedly offered him his sword, saying, " It is sharper than yours." 106 He had probably conspired with the Senate, whose deputies met him at Bonn.107 The fidelity of the soldiery to Ti- berius and to the popular party rendered necessary a prompt dismissal of these deputies under guard. Some of the higher officers were in the conspiracy, and also Chorea, whom the Senate afterwards employed to mur- der Caligula. Germanicus was offered the empire.108 The story that the legions revolted means that they refused obedience to himself and to such officers as were in the conspiracy.109 Germanicus himself must for a time have been de- tained a prisoner by the soldiery.110 He gave vent to his on a signal given among themselves, they rushed into their tents and butchered them, while in utter ignorance of the plot ; none but those who were privy to it understanding wherefore the massacre began, or where it would end." — Tacitus, An. 1, 48, Bohn's trans. The conclud- ing remarks imply that the men had not been in open revolt, otherwise the object of the massacre would have been obvious. i°6 Dio Cass. 57, 5. 107 Tacitus, An. 1, 39. 108 Tacitus, An. 1, 31 - 35. 109 Silius, who at the accession of Tiberius commanded on the Upper fihine a large army, boasted at a later date, "that his soldiery had re- tained their subordination [to their commanding officers] when others had broken out in sedition ; nor would the imperial dignity have remained with Tiberius if those [the other] legions had been desirous of a revolu- tion."— Tac. An. 4, 18. A somewhat similar occurrence took place when the pro-slavery rebellion in the United States broke out. Army officers, ap- pointed during dominance of the slave-holding aristocracy, and by their influence, adhered in considerable numbers to the class from which they sprung, or to which they owed promotion. The common soldiers, almost without exception, proved true to the government and the cause of equal rights. No mutual butchery, however, was even meditated. These re- marks are also true concerning navy officers and common seamen. One instance of a common seaman refusing obedience when ordered by an officer to pull down the national flag is given in Moore, Rebellion Record, Diary, p. 43. Ir> Tacitus puts into the mouth of Germanicus a speech, fabricated §xi.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 14-18. 183 disappointment, or sought to obscure his efforts for im- perial dignity, by carrying on war against the natives in a vehement and brutal manner.111 In fact, at a yet later date his inhumanity112 must have been anything but agreeable to an uncle who was habitually just and forbear- ing even to an enemy, and who proved remarkably suc- cessful in maintaining peace with other nations. In A. D. 16, after an unsuccessful campaign, Tiberius had recalled to Rome the reluctant Germanicus.113 So soon as this was accomplished, Germany quieted down and remained peaceful towards Rome during the whole reis;n of the former. probably by himself, from which the following is an extract : "Shall I call you soldiers who have besieged [me] the son of your emperor by a rampart and with arms ? Shall I call you citizens, you by whom sena- torial authority is set at naught ? " — Tacitus, An. 1, 42. 111 "He wasted the country by lire and sword to the extent of fifty miles ; nor sex nor age found mercy ; places sacred and profane, without distinction, even the temple of Tanfana, the most celebrated amongst these nations, all were levelled with the ground." — Tacitus, An. 1, f>], Bonn's trans. "He fell upon theCattians with such surprise, that all the WEAK THROUGH SEX OR AGE WERE INSTANTLY TAKEN OR SLAUGHTERKD ; their youth [from the other side] swam over the Adrana and endeavored to obstruct the Romans, who commenced building a bridge ; then, re- pulsed by engines and arrows, and having in vain tried terms of peace, after some had gone over to Germanicus, the rest abandoned their cantons and villages, and dispersed themselves into the woods." — Tacitus, An. 1, 5% Bohn's trans. 112 "Germanicus . . . exhorted his men ' to prosecute the slaughter ; they wanted no captives,' he said ; 'the extermination of the people alone would put an end to the war.' " — Tac. An. 2, 21, Bohn's trans. Sueto- nius tells us {Tiberius, c. 52) that Tiberius, in speaking of his nephew's doings, "depreciated his most illustrious exploits as sv^crvacuis, worse than objectless, and found fault with his most glorious victories as detri- mental to the Republic." 113 Tacitus, An. 2, 26. Tiberius may, in recalling his nephew, have avoided harshness, but the letter to Germanicus which Tacitus puts into his mouth must be fabricated. He seems not to have discouraged in others a triumphal reception of his nephew, though he knew that the chief part of the reception given to him had been gotten up for political effect, by an aristocracy hostile to himself. 184 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. A year, approximately, after his recall, the aristocratic party made another move. " By a decree of the Fathers the provinces beyond the sea were granted to Germanicus with an authority wherever he went superior to such as held their positions by [senatorial] lot or by commission from the prince." m This was intended to give him au- thority certainly over all governors of Asiatic provinces, and has been understood as subjecting Egypt to him also. If these immense powers were conferred in the terms used by Tacitus, they were equivalent to revolution, for they abrogated a settled division of jurisdiction between the prince and Senate which had been in force nearly half a century,115 and was, equally as any other existing arrange- ment, part of the agglomeration that served as a consti- tution. Perhaps the commission of Germanicus was am- biguously worded, so as to permit the construction affixed to it by Tacitus. Tiberius, to prevent the threatening mischief, sent, as governor, to Syria, his friend Piso,116 whose manliness in a trying position justified his selection. He reached Syria 114 Tacitus, An. 2, 43. 115 The division took place under Augustus in b. c. 27, and is given in detail by Dio Cassius, 53, 12. Syria, Phoenicia, and Cilicia were appor- tioned, in Asia, to the prince. Outside of Asia, Egypt was one of the provinces which fell to him. The aristocracy — though deifying Augus- tus, that his acts in their favor might be held inviolable — would, to gain more power, have abrogated any and every thing done by him. The army had for half a century been under control of the prince. 116 Piso had in b. c. 7 been consul conjointly with Tiberius. The lat- ter went into exile within a twelvemonth after expiration of his office, — an evidence that things during this consulship did not satisfy the reac- tionary aristocracy. It gave Tiberius opportunity to estimate his col- league, whose selection, behavior, and fate, in the present conflict, render it probable that he had been a fast friend of justice rather than of patri- cian claims. His friendship for Tiberius was free from obsequiousness, as appears in his pleasantry (Tacitus, An. 1, 74), and in his desire (Tacitus, An. 2, 3j) that business should proceed as usual during an expected absence of the emperor. Gallus, who opposed this latter motion, may have estimated patrician objects and unscrupulousness more correctly than the frank -hearted Piso. § xi.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 14-18. 185 early in A. D. 18, and nearly at the same time Germanicus, who had left Borne earlier, landed in Asia Minor. Piso at once commenced drilling the legions,117 and changed some officers, substituting, doubtless, for men in the patri- cian interest, others on whom he could rely.118 German- icus almost immediately set out for a foreign country, Armenia, and went through the farce of crowning a king there. This secured him favor and the promise, doubtless, of co-operation from the faction which the king repre- sented. He then ordered Piso to lead part of the Syrian legions into Armenia. Piso, who knew that his duties lay in the Roman province of Syria, not in the foreign country of Armenia, forbore — as did Tiberius throughout his reign — any interference with the internal affairs of a foreign nation. Subsequently, at a banquet, Germanicus and his wife accepted golden crowns from the king of the Nabathseans, a people in Northern Arabia. Yet later, at the request of Artabanus, king of the Parthians, and with a view, no doubt, to his alliance, he, against the will of Piso, sent as a prisoner from Syria into Cilicia, Vonones, an expatriated Parthian king, a friend of Tiberius, living under Roman protection. The unfortunate man, a person apparently of culture, was promptly afterwards mur- dered.119 117 Tacitus says (An. 2, 55) that Piso allowed the soldiery to live idly IN CAMP, ill-behaved in the cities, and to roam mischievously about the country. But in the same paragraph he unwittingly betrays that this was the reverse of truth, by charging Piso's wife with lack of feminine modesty in attending the military exercises of cavalry and infantry. 118 Silanus, the previous governor of Syria, was connected with Ger- manicus by the intermarriage of their children, and had possibly been arranging matters in the interest of Germanicus. Tacitus (An. 2, 55) treats these charges as being to the detriment of army discipline, but adds, that "some even of the good soldiers were prompt in their undue subserviency because of a secret rumor that these things were not unac- ceptable to the emperor." If so, we may feel sure that they did not cause deterioration of discipline. 119 According to Suetonius (Tiberius, 49) the wealth of Vonones caused his murder. It would, of course, prove very convenient in making ar- rangements for a rebellion. 186 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. CHAPTEE VIII. CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 19-70. § 1. A. D. 19, 20. Conversions to Judaism become Illegal. The preparations for rebellion against Tiberius, men- tioned in our last chapter, had been about consummated at the beginning of the present year. The plan, so far as it can be inferred from the actions of those concerned in it, was as follows. Germanicus, under his authoriza- tion from the Senate, was to drive out from his uncle's provinces1 the appointees of his uncle, and was to establish in those provinces a kingdom for himself. The aristocracy at Rome meanwhile were, in the first place, to drive out, under different pretexts, those likely to take his uncle's part, and were then to re-establish the unlimited control of the Senate as it had existed in times of patrician su- premacy. The forces of Germanicus consisted probably of such troops as the senatorial faction could furnish from its own provinces, and of auxiliaries from the Arabian king who had crowned him, from the Armenian faction whose king- he had crowned, and, last but not least, from the Parthian king. In Egypt, which lay at a distance from Parthia and from the senatorial provinces, he made no headway, notwithstanding his efforts to gain favor with the inhab- itants.2 In Syria he -drove out his uncle's deputy, but 1 See division of provinces mentioned in Ch. VII. note 115. 2 Germanicus, according to Tacitus {An. 2, 5S), divested himself of his Roman dress and adopted that of the Greeks. He also, as mentioned by Pliny {Nat. Hist. 8, 71, 1 ; al. 46), consulted the Egyptian divinity Apis, the sacred bull. The former procedure suggests a question whether Germanicus held forth that his kingdom was to be a Grecian rather than a Roman one. His visit to Apis is (intentionally ?) omitted by Tacitus. It may well have seemed incongruous that the aristocracy should perse- cute Egyptianism at Rome whilst their leader sought its favor in Egypt. § I.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 19, 20. 187 was not long afterwards carried off by an illness. The efforts of Tacitus to prevent a comprehension of his ac- tions are given below.3 Piso at once returned with such forces as he could collect.4 The Parthian king, though writing abusively to Tiberius,5 must have been conquered and compelled to give hostages.6 At Home one or both of the consuls were of the ultra- patrician school. The new year was welcomed by one of them with a blast from his trumpet,7 in anticipation, as it would seem, of military deeds. Apprehension as to the result must have been general, for a couplet was sung in the streets7* as Sibylline : — Their action may have taken place after failure by him to enlist Egyptian aid. 3 " Germanicus returning from Egypt found his commands to legions or cities annulled or reversed. Hence serious insults [were heaped by him] on Piso, nor did the latter exert himself with less asperity against Germanicus. From that time (?) Piso determined to quit Syria. . . . There were found on the floor and walls [of Germanicus, who is repre- sented as having fallen ill] exhumed remnants of human bodies, verses and magic cursings and the name of Germanicus cut into leaden tablets, half-burnt ashes smeared with gore, and other evil doings by which souls are reputedly devoted to the infernal powers. . . . Germanicus heard of these things with no less anger than fear. . . . He wrote [to Piso], renouncing his friendship. Most add, that he commanded him to leave the province. Nor did Piso delay longer." — Tacitus, An. 2, G9, 70. This seems to be the nearest approach to an apology which Tacitus can frame for the treason of Germanicus in seizing Syria and forcibly driving out the prefect whom his uncle had, so far as there was any constitution at Rome, constitutionally appointed. 4 Piso wrote to Tiberius that, "driven out to make room for revolu- tion, he had redirected his steps to take charge of the army, prompted by the same fidelity wherewith he had previously exercised his com- mand."— Tacitus, An. 2, 78. His efforts to strengthen his forces are mentioned in the same chapter. 5 Suetonius, Tib. 66. 6 A king was subsequently (Dio Cass. 58, 26) selected by the Parthiana from among these hostages. The Parthian hostages mentioned by Sue- tonius (£alig. 19) must have been these sent in the time of Tiberius. No subsequent occurrence had called for them. » Dio Cass. 57, is. '• Ibid. 188 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. " When thrice three hundred years shall have passed Internal sedition, the Sybaritic madness, shall destroy the Romans." As a first step towards crippling Tiberius, the Senate expelled the Jews and their converts from Eome or Italy, after having impressed four thousand of their younger men and shut them up in Sardinia,8 an island under sen- atorial control, where they would be unavailable for the popular party. The Senate also instituted an inquisition which, as we may infer from the fears of Seneca's father, must have been unsparing, touching any who held Jew- ish views,9 and we can safely infer that it would have 8 "Action was also held touching expulsion of the Egyptian and Jewish religions, and a decree was enacted by the Senate, ' that four thousand freedmen of suitable age, who were infected with that [the Jewish] superstition, should be deported to the island of Sardinia to restrain the robbers there, and, if they perished by the severity of the climate, the loss would be a cheap one ; that the others should quit Italy, unless before a fixed day they had renounced their profane rites.' *' — Tacitus, An. 2, 85. If the former " perished " it was probably by murder. Some of these freedmen, instead of being born Jews, may originally have been Gentiles,. Dio Cassius says: "I do not know whence this appellation (Jews) originated, but it applies to such other men as are DEVOTED TO THEIR INSTITUTIONS, EVEN IF FROM OTHER NATIONS." — Dio Cass. 37, 17. Tiberius "repressed foreign ceremonies [namely], Egyptian and Jewish rites, compelling such as were under control of that [the Egyptian ?] superstition to burn their sacred vestments with all their apparatus. He distributed the young men of the Jews under guise of a military con- scription into provinces where the climate was severe. The others of that race, or proselytes to their views, similia scctantes, he removed from the city, under pain of perpetual servitude if they did not obey." — Suetonius, Tib. c. 36. The vestments burned must have been Egyp- tian. The Jewish priesthood, with its paraphernalia, was confined to Jerusalem. The synagogue service seems to have been devoid of show. 9 The reader, while perusing the following, should bear in mind the statement in Smith's Diet, of Antiq. p. 307, col. 1, that, "of solid meat, pork seems [among the Romans] to have been the favorite dish," — a remark equally true of the Greeks. See the same work, p. 305, col. 2. Seneca, after explaining that when he was a young man a certain "Sotion, a disciple of Pythagoras, had persuaded him to give up animal food, con- § I.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE. A. D. 19, 20. 189 shown little or no justice to political opponents. Tiberius at once exerted himself to protect the Jews, in such prov- inces as he controlled. Josephus mentions as the cause of Jewish expulsion an incident utterly insufficient to justify such wholesale proscription.10 If it occurred, whether by preconcert or not, of patrician agents, it must have been merely a pre- text, not the reason for expulsion. It is not mentioned by Tacitus or Suetonius, and may be merely a fiction by the Jewish aristocracy in exculpation of their patrician al- lies. The alleged occurrence at an Egyptian temple, also tinues : "At the expiration of a year the custom was not only easy but pleasant to me. I believed my mind to be more active, though at present I would not affirm whether it were so or not. Do you ask why I gave it up ? [The answer is that] I was a young man in the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Other-race religious observances were at that time in course of expulsion, and among the proofs of [adhesion to foreign] superstition was regarded abstinence from the flesh of certain animals. When, there- fore, I was requested by my father, who feared calumny, though he had no distaste for philosophy, I returned to my former way of life. Neither had he much difficulty in persuading me to commence with better fare." — Seneca, Epistle 108, §§ 21, 22. 10 "There was a man who was a Jew, but had been driven away from his own country by an accusation laid against him for transgressing their laws and by the fear he was under of punishment for the same ; but in all respects a wicked man. He, then living at Rome, professed to in- struct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his part- ners. These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity, and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem ; and when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves ; on which ac- count it was that they at first required it of her. Whereupon Tiberius [?] (who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, at his wife's solicitation) ordered everything Jewish to be banished out of Rome ; at which time the consuls listed [impressed] four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island of Sardinia ; but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers, on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men." —Josephus, Antiq. 18, 3, 5, Whiston's trans, altered. Compare Ch. II. § II. 2. 190 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. narrated by Josephus alone,11 has, after due allowance for feminine credulity and heathen immorality, an improbable look. Any unpreconcerted coincidence of the two events with each other and with a political crisis of patrician- ism is utterly unlikely. Josephus and Suetonius ascribe Jewish expulsion to Tiberius. This would imply that he expelled his political friends and placed them in Sardinia, under control of his political enemies, — a supposition which defies credence. The penalty affixed to residence in the city by a Jew or convert to Judaism was, as already quoted from Suetonius, perpetual slavery. The severe (?) climate of Sardinia and the repression of robbers there are intended probably to divert the reader's attention from the true object of the conscription. Coincident with an ti -Jewish legislation the patricians had arranged a testimonial of increased devotion towards those institutions which they were desperately trying to uphold. Occia, a Vestal Virgin, had died ; how long pre- viously we are not told. Her office (see Ch. VII. note 95) had already, in the days of Augustus, lost its attrac- tions. But heathen customs needed to be upheld as a sup- port to patricianism. Zeal for party overrode parental affection. Two apparently prominent patricians had arranged to offer each a daughter. The choice between them was not decided by lot, bat by considerations which raise the following questions. Had Jewish influence nur- tured among Romans an idea that absence of divorce was a qualification for religious office ? And was an anti- Jewish Senate influenced by a moral consideration, whose prominence in the community was attributable to Jewish teaching ? 12 11 Josephus gives the details in his Antiquities, 18, 3, 4. The husband of Paulina, equally as of Fulvia, is by Josephus called Saturninus. 12 "After which things [namely, the anti-Jewish provisions] Csesar laid before the Senate, ' that a virgin was to be selected in the place of Occia, who during fifty-seven years had presided with the greatest sanc- tity over the Vestal observances'; and he [?J gave thanks to Fonteius Agrippa and Domitius Pollio, that by offering their daughters they had vied in good offices toward the Republic [the Senate ?]. The daughter § i.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 19, 20. 191 An incident which can only by conjecture be connected with the cause of monotheism and popular rights is re- manded to a note.13 The rebellion at the East had been thwarted largely through Piso's activity. The chagrined aristocracy deter- mined to wreak their vengeance on him. Agrippina, the wife of Germanicus, disappointed of royalty, brought back, in no amiable mood,14 the ashes of her husband in a pompous funeral procession to Eome. The aristocracy exerted themselves to make capital out of the occasion. Tiberius sent two pretorian cohorts to escort his nephew's remains ; but neither he nor the mother of Germanicus, nor yet the grandmother, a partisan in most things of the aristocracy, attended the funeral. All saw that it had become a mere political manifestation with a criminal object. The funeral occurred early in A. D. 20. At a subsequent of Pollio was preferred, solely because of her mother never having been divorced ; for Agrippa by a separation had lowered [the standing of] his house. "— Tacitus, An. 2, 86. The foregoing attributes to Tiberius a limited manifestation of respect towards heathen rites, which is rendered improbable by his known tendencies and yet more by the political sig- nificance, hostile to himself, which any effort towards re-establishing heathen religious customs must then have had. The truthfulness of Tacitus is inadequate evidence of sympathy by Tiberius with the action. 13 Titidius Labeo was summoned to answer (Tacitus, An. 2, 85) the charge of undue lenity to his wife. If she acted as alleged he would have been entitled to commiseration rather than prosecution. If, on the other hand, heedless words had by the ingenuity of party malice been distorted into a confession of crime, then a gross wrong was perpetrated towards her, that a blow might be aimed at her husband. Heathen dissoluteness prevents her alleged conduct from being incredible. The name of Labeo, however, and the vindictiveness of party strife, suggest that some son of the celebrated jurist may, in this, have been persecuted for services rendered by his father to the cause of human right. 14 Agrippina seems to have been ambitious and vindictive, as we may infer from the advice to her which Tacitus (An. 2, 72) attributes to her husband, from the remark to her of Tiberius (Sueton. Tib. 53), and from his letter (Tac. An. 5, 3), and from her connection with the rebellion of a. D. 31, as also from remarks found in Tacitus, An. 4, SP, 52, 53. 192 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. date Piso arrived, and was escorted by friends to his house. On the day alter his arrival prosecution (under the Roman system of private prosecutors15) was commenced against him by Fulcinius Trio, who, eleven years later, reappears, conjointly with Agrippina, as leader of the aristocracy in another rebellion against Tiberius. For some reason, how- ever, it must have been deemed judicious to withdraw Trio and substitute other accusers. Before a regular tri- bunal the Senate would have been defeated, but by some stretch of power it had the case brought before itself. Thus Piso's enemies were to be his judges. By what procedure the trial was removed from an ordinary court into the Senate16 does not appear. A mob, organized of course by the opposite faction, seized Piso's statues and hurried with them towards the place for executed criminals. A file of soldiers, who must have received orders from Tiberius, rescued the statues promptly and replaced them where they had previously stood. The Senate condemned Piso to death.17 He committed 15 See Appendix, Note C. 16 Compare on p. 112 note 119. A similar transfer of trial took place in the British House of Commons when the South Sea scheme fell through. " It was not found possible by any process of legal punishment to pursue with due pains and penalties. . . . The Houses of Parliament . . . made the directors bring in an account of their property and estates . . . and . . . fined them at their pleasure." — Smyth, Led. on Mod. Hist. Vol. 2, pp. 259, 260, Am. edit. These directors were not, as Piso, punished for allegiance to duty. The usual tribunal (Tac. An. 2, 79) would seem to have been a pretor's court. Tacitus (An. 3, 10) narrates that proceedings were first com- menced before the consuls. These were dropped. Tiberius was asked to sit as judge, for the prince, by virtue of his office, had, since its origin in the days of Augustus, judicial power. The request came doubtless from friends of Piso, though Tacitus puts it into such connection as favors an opposite conclusion. Tiberius declined, and, as misrepresented by Tacitus (An. 3, 10), referred the matter to the Senate. 17 Suetonius, Caliy. c. 2. The only real charge against Piso was that he had poisoned Germanicus. The evidence of this, according to Pliny (Nat. Hist. 11, 71, 2), was the following. The heart of a poisoned person § i.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 19, 20. 193 suicide after having requested by letter the exertions of Tiberius in behalf of his children.18 Tiberius, whose questions betoken painful interest in the fate of his friend,19 exerted himself at once in behalf of his family and against the motion to erase his name from the annals, that is, from the list of consuls.20 Tacitus would have us believe that Tiberius during the trial looked grave or indifferent, and, therefore, Piso committed suicide.21 The aristocracy, as we may infer from Dio Cassius, pushed their success and involved some of Piso's friends, or of their own enemies, in his fate.22 This sequence could not, according to the allegation of Piso's accusers, be burned. The fire which consumed the body of Germanicus did not consume his heart ; therefore he must have been poisoned. Even Tacitus allows {An. 3, 14) that the charge was not proved. Other accusations of war against the provinces and the allies must have meant simply that Piso, when attacked, defended himself and maintained the authority of Tiberius against the Senate in provinces which for fifty years had been under jurisdiction, not of the latter, but of the prince. Compare note 25. 18 Tacitus, An. 3, 16. 19 "Csesar, putting on an expression of grief, [said to Piso's freedman who (Tac. An. 3, 15) had been intrusted with the letter] that he (Piso) had by such a death invited disgrace on himself at the hands of the Senate. Then by repeated inquiries he sought out in detail what kind of a day and night Piso's last had been." — Tacitus, An. 3, 16. The character of Tiberius (see note G) is a guaranty that grief, if manifested, was felt. The remark to the freedman is probably a fiction ; its object being to conceal the fact that Piso had already been condemned. 20 Tacitus, An. 3 17, 18. 21 " Piso, having suffered from renewed accusation, [had it been inter- mitted or decided once in his favor ?] from hostile voices of the Fathers and from all adverse and threatening circumstances, was utterly fright- ened by nothing so much as by seeing Tiberius without [evidence of] commiseration or anger. ... At daybreak he was found [in his chamber], his throat cut, his sword lying on the ground." — Tacitus, An. 3, 15. 22 "In retaliation for the death of Germanicus many were destroyed on the charge that they had rejoiced at it." — Dio Cassius, 57, 18. The connection, attributes these murders to Tiberius; but after his death all murders perpetrated in his. reign by the. senatorial faction. were, by that 9 M 194 JUDAISM AT HOME. [CH. VIII. of the trial is ignored, or concealed, by Tacitus,23 who, though acquainted with the views of the popular party concerning Germanicus,24 has given us merely patrician statements, or his own fictions and discolorations 2o One of his boldest efforts at untruth is the statement under a. D. 23, that, daring the reign of Tiberius prior to that date, the Eepublic had been compositam, " free from dis- turbance." In the management of accusations against Piso or others of the popular party it is probable that the established in- stitution of Prosecutors on shares must have showed some faction, attributed to him. Compare, in Appendix, Note G, foot-note 114. 23 Tacitus, after mentioning rewards to the prosecutors, alleges : " This was the end of [proceedings in] revenge for the death of Germanicus." — An. 3, 19. 24 Tacitus says concerning the death of Germanicus, under which he includes apparently what preceded and followed it : " Even in subsequent times diverse views of it had currency. Points of the highest importance are in doubt, because some treat mere hearsay as certainty, while others reverse the truth." — An. 3, 19. 25 Tacitus {An. 3, 12) attributes to Tiberius a remark, that if Piso had failed in respect towards Germanicus, this was a matter for himself to resent, not as prince but as a private individual. If Tiberius uttered the remark, it meant, doubtless, that such disrespect was no matter for judi- cial cognizance. The following statements attributed to Tiberius must be outright fab- rications. That only the wisdom of Germanicus could manage matters at the East (Tac. An. 2, 43) ; that he had by authorization of the Senate sent Piso thither as a [subordinate] coadjutor to Germanicus (Tac. An. 3, 12) ; that he promised rewards to the prosecutors of Piso (Tac. An. 3, 19). Equally fabricated must be the expressions professedl}' copied from Piso's letter to Tiberius: "Divine Augustus"; "my wickedness." Piso was writing to one who knew him to be innocent. The meanest insinuation is one which Tacitus (An. 3, 16) does not pretend to have found recorded anywhere, namely, that Piso had not committed suicide, but been assassinated by an emissary of Tiberius. Tacitus remembered to have heard this from scnioribus persons of a former generation whose names he does not give. Compare, in the Ap- pendix, Note G, § V. as to his untruthfulness. §n.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 21-37. 195 of its worst features, for a commission was appointed to remedy its evils.26 §n. A. D. 21-37. During that portion of the reign of Tiberius which is after A. r>. 19, our knowledge of Judaism at Home is quite indirect. We may safely assume that moral sense could not approve expulsion, or servitude, of well-behaved citi- zens because of their belief ; and if Jews were the me- chanics of that day, that the industrial wants of the com- munity, no less than the politics of the popular party, would powerfully co-operate with moral sense. It is not strange, therefore, that the aristocracy were at once put upon the defensive and needed to ransack antiquity for the semblance of precedent.27 Absence of disturbance in Judea during the whole reign of Tiberius (Tac. Hist. 5, 9) must have been due to confidence in himself, not to confidence in the Senate. 25 Tacitus, An. 3, 28. Compare Appendix, Note C. 27 Valerius Maximus, in a work issued during the reign of Tiberius, devotes a chapter (Book 1, c. 3) to the instances in which a foreign re- ligion had been rejected, dc peregrina religione rcjccta. Under three heads he mentions five instances. 1. Bacchanal orgies, after being car- ried to excess, had been abolished ; and " Lutatius, who finished the first Punic war, was forbidden by the Senate to consult the oracle of Fortune at Preeneste, for they decided that the Republic ought to be administered according to its own, not according to foreign, divination." 2. Cornelius Hispallus, "pretor for foreigners," had given the astrologers ten days in which to leave the city and Italy. The same man had sent "to their homes [in the city ?] those who by a pretended worship of Sabazian Jove endeavored to corrupt Roman customs." 3. A temple of Isis and Serapis had been destroyed. To class astrology as a foreign religion, or astrologers as a religious sect, seems a stretch of language. It was, perhaps, the only means of finding a precedent for expelling religionists from the city, or from Italy. On Jewish connection with astrology, see pp. 37, 38. The derivation of the term " Sabazian Jove " is uncertain. If it were a corruption for Jove Sabaoth, or Jove Sabatticus, we might reasonably infer that in b. c. 139, when Cornelius Scipio Hispallus was pretor (see Scipio, No. 28, in Smith, Did. of Biog.), some (foreigners) at Rome had mixed Judaism with heathenism. 196 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. As regards heathenism we can see that the reactionary spasm had done it no service. Temples had been multi- plied. The conservative reaction of A. D. 19 may have furnished a pretext for erecting new ones, but the fol- lowing causes were also probably efficient. A criminal, a debtor, or a slave who took refuge in a temple could not be taken thence by pursuers. Very numerous classes in the community, therefore, were interested in encouraging and aiding this multiplication of asylums.28 A fraternity of thieves would inevitably be among the most pious and outspoken in their devotion to temple building. A sen- atorial investigation during A. D. 22 into the claims of different temples merely opened the floodgates of fable and deluged the Senate with traditions which its ortho- doxy must have been puzzled either to accept or reject, and which exhausted patience.29 If the monotheistic and popular party had devised a plan for weakening heathen- ism and exposing it to contempt, they could hardly have invented a better one than such an investigation. Heathen deities took, according to prevalent ideas, no interest in moral offences of man against man, but were sure to resent insult to themselves, whether by taking a man from their altars, or otherwise ; therefore, what the heathens miscalled religion, was legitimately account- able for prevailing evils. So far as the conservative reaction of A. D. 19 stimulated erection of temples, it contributed towards exposing the true character of heath- enism. The motive of the Senate in limiting the right of its deities to grant an asylum was less probably a desire of shielding the community against criminals than of securing themselves against slaves. Some of the latter, 28 "The temples were filled with the worst classes of slaves. There persons loaded with debt took refuge against creditors. So did those suspected of capital crimes, nor was any power so efficient in restraining popular sedition, or human wickedness, as the divine ceremonies were in protecting them." — Tacitus, An. 3, 60. 29 " The Fathers, weary with the quantity [of embassies concerning temples] and with the earnestness of the strife, intrusted [the whole matter with some limitations] to the consuls." — Tacitus, A n. 3, 63. §il] chronological narrative, A. D. 21-37. 197 while protected by the statue of the * Divine Augustus," had abused their masters,30 to the amusement perhaps of the popular party. Deference to the divinity of Augustus would be severely tested in not ordering their seizure. In A. D. 23 two occurrences show the downward ten- dency of the old religion. The Senate needed to vote a heavy pecuniary gratuity to one of the vestal virgins, and a seat among them at the theatre to the emperor's mother,31 as a means of diminishing repugnance towards the office. Another event of the same year calls for a prefatory remark. Twelve months before this, Servius Maluginensis, priest of Jupiter, had claimed the province of Asia,32 under, as it would seem, a rule of the Senate, that the oldest con- sular senator, that is, the one who had longest ago held the consulship, should be entitled to that province. The rule was the only resource perhaps against strife between greedy aspirants. An examination of law showed that the priest of Jupiter must not leave Rome for more than a night or two at a time, and Asia was awarded to the next oldest consular.33 This legal discovery was likely enough to terminate all ambition for this priesthood. Patrician zeal for heathenism had no intention of sacri- ficing a governor's perquisites in Asia for the empty dignity of being Jupiter's priest. Maluginensis was now (a. d. 23) dead, and the Senate made some abatement from old usage, that the office misdit find an incumbent.34 The son of Maluginensis was 30 Tacitus, An. 3, 36. 81 Tacitus, An. 4, 16. 32 Tacitus, An. 3, 58. Augustus or the aristocracy revived, in b. c. 11, during the reactionary efforts of that date, the priesthood of Jupiter, which had been out of existence for seventy-six years. Since that date Servius Maluginensis had been the only incumbent. 33 Tacitus, An. 3, 71. The incumbent had been thirty-three years in office without knowledge of this rule. Obviously neither he nor others had given it a thought until a monetary reason for its consideration arose. 84 Tacitus saves senatorial orthodoxy by attributing to Tiberius the proposal for modifying ancient usage. 198 JUDAISM AT HOME. [CH. VIII. temporarily substituted suffectus in Ins fathers place.35 Sixteen years later, in A. D. 39, a question touching the priest of Jupiter seems to imply that this son, or some one else, was then in office ; but, with this exception, the priest of Jupiter disappears from history. In A. D. 24 augury, the only relic of what might be called public religious service at Borne, came to an end.36 It was not revived during a quarter of a century. The public or patrician religion was wholly disconnected from morality, benevolence, or hopes of a future life, and with its extinguishment not a soul would in these respects have felt itself worse off.37 It had been upheld by a political faction merely for political objects. Its tempo- rary death did not prevent prosecutions for unbelief against members of the popular party, a noteworthy instance of which will reappear in our next section. The plottings of the aristocracy against Tiberius, and their rebellion in a. d. 31, are not historically connected with monotheism, except by prosecutions for unbelief against persons whose names, with one exception, have not been preserved. An account of this rebellion will be found in the Appendix, Note G, § in. In A. D. 32 a production in the name of Sibylla was added to the public collection.38 This may indicate that the rebellion of A. D. 31, equally as that of A. D. 19, 20, was followed by reaction against the old religion. 35 Tacitus, An. 4, 16. Compare the use of suffectus in the consular lists. 35 In A. d. 49, augury, according to Tacitus {An. 12, 23), had been disused for twenty-five years. Compare touching it an extract from Strabo with comments, on pp. 175, 176. Strabo calls it "Etruscan divination." 37 If Christian churches were without teaching, mere refuge-places for crime or misfortune, into which no officer of the law dare intrude, they would in so far resemble heathen temples. 88 Tacitus, An. 6, 12. Compare Appendix, Note A, foot-note 120. §in.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37 - 41. 199 § in. A. D. 37 - 41. Caligula. 1. HIS CHARACTER. The character of Caligula, equally as that of Tiberius, needs to be ascertained by sifting a mass of misrepresen- tation. A prominent trait in it was kindliness, with which impatience may sometimes, though not seriously, have interfered. This trait of kindliness belonged to him in childhood ; and the appellation bestowed on him by the soldiery39 of Caligula, that is, " Little- Boots" seems to have been one of affection. At his accession the multi- tude showered upon him the epithets, not of servility nor yet of deference towards a superior, but of endearment40 as towards a loved child. His illness caused widespread sympathy,41 unless among the aristocracy, and after his 89 "It was to the pleasantry of the soldiers in camp that he owed the name of Caligula. . . . How much his education amongst them recom- mended him to their favor and affection was sufficiently apparent in the mutiny upon the death of Augustus, when the mere sight of him appeased their fury, though it had risen to a great height. For they persisted in it, until they observed that he was sent away to a neighboring city, to secure him against all danger. Then, at last, they began to relent, and, stopping the chariot in which he was conveyed, earnestly deprecated the odium to which such a proceeding would expose them." — Sueton. Calig. c. 9, Bolm's trans, altered. 40 Sueton. Calig. 13. Epithets of this nature scarcely admit transla- tion. Compare on p. 224, popular love for him after his death. 41 "Accordingly, when the news was spread abroad that he was sick, . . . every house and every city became full of depression and melan- choly. . . . When his disease began to abate, in a very short time even the men who were living on the very confines of the empire heard of it and rejoiced, . . . every city was full of suspense and expectation, being continually eager for better news, . . . each thinking the health of Caius to be his own salvation ; and this feeling pervaded every continent and every island, for no one can recollect so great and general a joy affecting any one country or any one nation, at the good health or prosperity of their governor, as now pervaded the whole of the habitable world at the recovery of Caius." — Philo, Embassy to Caius, c. 3, Bonn's trans. (Paris edit pp. 682, 683). The foregoing is from Caligula's enemy. "When 200 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. death the senatorial faction which had prompted could not protect his murderers. His kindheartedness did not diminish with years. When public amusement had caused murder, he gave vent to his feelings at its inhumanity.42 He must have concluded that to such a set even sham fights were harmful, for he sold off the remaining gladi- ators.43 He seems, however, to have catered liberally for public amusement by shows of wild beasts44 and by in- stituting theatricals in different parts of the city,45 in hopes perhaps of reclaiming the multitude from more brutal tastes. The sale of his valuables was due doubtless to the above trait. He had visited the army in Gaul more than a year before his death, and must have found there the customary evil of soldiers cheated and plundered by their officers ; an evil wherewith better administrative abilities than his have been puzzled to cope, and from which some modern European armies are by no means free. He there- upon transported to Lyons the valuables collected in his palace, sold them at auction, and used the proceeds for he fell ill, the people hung about the Palatium all night long; some vowed, in public hand-bills, to risk their lives in the combats of the amphitheatre, and others to lay them down, for his recovery." — Sueton. Calig. c. 14, Bonn's trans. Josephus, amidst some contradictory statements, says of Caligula, that "he was also more skilful in persuading others to very great things than any one else, and this from a natural affability of temper which had been improved by much exercise and painstaking." — Josephus, Antiq. 19, 2, 5, Winston's trans. And mentions {Ibid.) that he " was a slave to the commendations of the populace " ; with which remark, however, com- pare the last paragraph of note 72. 42 See Sueton. Calig. 30, cited in Ch. V. note 7. 43 Dio Cass. 59, 14. Compare Sueton. Calig. 39 (or in Bohn's trans. 38). 44 Dio Cass. 59, 13; compare 59, 7. 45 "He frequently entertained the people with stage-plays of various kinds and in several parts of the city." — Sueton. Calig. 18, Bohn's trans. "At first he was a spectator and listener, joining in approbation or dis- •approbation as if he were one of the crowd; subsequently ... he did not go to the theatre." — Dio Cass. 59, 5. His relative Pomponius strove (Pliny, Jim. 7, 17, ll) to make these a success. § in.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 201 his soldiers,46 cashiering at the same time not a few cen- turions who had either been peculating,47 or engaged in conspiracy against himself. His directions to the soldiery after a parade, that they should collect spoils from the ocean, namely, its shells,48 meant evidently that he wished them to have a good time and enjoy themselves. The procedure was followed by a donation to each of them. Affectionateness is rarely lacking in a kindly disposi- tion, and in Caligula the affections seem to have been strong.49 If his selection of a seat for his infant daugh- ter be a true indication of his aims in her behalf, then affectionateness was mingled with true aspirations. Another prominent feature in Caligula was a keen appreciation of the ludicrous, and a tendency to give humorous rather than correct reasons for his conduct. Thus for a practical and sufficient reason he enclosed a 46 " Sending for the most beautiful and expensive of the princely valu- ables, he sold them at auction. . . . Yet he did not lay up anything but expended it on — aside from other things — . . . the armies." — Dio Cass. 59, 21, 22. The context specifies articles received from his father and mother, from his grandfather and great-grandfathers. Suetonius {Calig. 39) treats the sale as consisting of furniture from the old palace aula, and gives an exaggerated, or perhaps fabricated, account of incon- venience suffered at Rome by abstraction of teams to transport it. 47 "He deprived of their companies most of the centurions of the first rank, who had now served their legal time in the wars, and some whose time would have expired in a few days; alleging against them their age and infirmity [?]; and railing at the covetous disposition of the rest of them." — Suetonius, Calig. c. 44, Bohn's trans. 48 Sueton. Calig. c. 46. 49 "He loved with a most passionate and constant affection [his wife] Ctesonia, who was neither handsome nor young." — Sueton. Calig. 25, Bohn's trans. The same is implied in his eccentric remark (Sueton. Calig. 33), that he would have to put her to the torture to ascertain what made him love her so. He is mentioned (Sueton. Calig. 25) as carrying, outside of home, his infant child ; and the fact that he placed her in the lap of Minerva, rather than in that of any other goddess, indicates per- haps his wishes in her behalf. Compare Suetonius, Calig. 25, with Dio Cassius, 59, es, and Josephus, Autiq. 19, 1, 2. 9* 202 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. passage from his domicile to the temple of Castor and Pollux. His assigned reason for so doing was, that he might have them for door-keepers.50 His feeble-minded uncle Claudius engaged in conspiracy against him, but, owing probably to good feeling in Caligula, was not pun- ished. The statement of Suetonius, that he reserved him for a laughing stock,51 may have been the reason assigned by his nephew. Caligula's unsound nervous organization, combined with sleeplessness,52 occasioned or aggravated impatience. He was aware of the tendency, for he regarded his child as in- heriting it from himself.53 This impatience may not only have mingled with his denunciation of aristocratic crime,54 his utterances of contempt for aristocratic hobbies,55 and 60 On an edge of the Palatine Hill (Findlay's Atlas, map 2) stood the palace of Caligula. In the valley, at a distance of from two hundred to four hundred yards, was the Roman Forum. The difference in alti- tude was (see Smith, Diet, of Geog. Vol. 2, p. 721, col. 2) less than one hundred feet. Between the two was the temple of Castor and Pollux, fronting towards the Forum and reached by a high flight of steps, from which orators sometimes (Smith, Diet, of Geog. Vol. 2, p. 783, col. 2) addressed the multitude below. The temple was frequently used (Cicero, In Verrem, Act. 2, Lib. 1, 49) for senatorial, and daily for judicial, busi- ness. Caligula, from motives of health or convenience, made a covered passage (Sueton. Calig. c. 22 ; Dio Cassius, 59, 28), to this temple, and a doorway, if none previously existed, in its rear. It rendered attention to business in the temple, and, perhaps, access to the Forum, much easier. Caligula's frequent presence in the temple or its portico may have origi- nated the story of his exhibiting himself between the two deities. 61 Sueton. Calig. 23. 62 Caligula was unable (Sueton. Calig. 50) to sleep more than three hours in a night and then not soundly. 63 "He thought its excitability the surest proof that it was his child." — Sueton. Calig. 25. 61 See Appendix, Note G, foot-notes 96 and 114. 55 The senatorial faction idolized Agrippa, who, under Augustus, had been its unscrupulous and successful leader. Caligula decried Agrippa, and wished no praise for being his grandson. The Senate worshipped Augustus, and, that it might sway Caligula to its purposes, employed a mob who should praise him (Dio Cass. 59, 13) as the young Augustus. §iil] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 3?«-41. 203 of indignation at venal or partisan lawyers and courts,56 but with his criticisms of things disconnected from poli- tics.57 We cannot pronounce with the same certainty on the truth or falsity of each specific act or word attributed to an impulsive though good-hearted being, as we can in dealing with a well-balanced character. Careless utter- ances, with no other object than temporary amusement, were natural to such a disposition as Caligula's. These often needed but slight perversion to give them an ap- pearance of seriousness and importance which they did not deserve. He may, in the earlier part of his reign, have humorously commented on it as not distinguished like that of his predecessors by any great calamity.58 Caligula, however, treated the victories of Augustus at Actium and Sicily as calamitous to the Roman people. (See Sueton. Calig. 23 ; Dio Cass. 59, 20.) He preferred to be considered a descendant of Antony rather than of Augustus ; that is, a member of the popular rather than of the patrician party. The aristocracy already, perhaps, as at a later date, treated admira- tion of Homer as a test of heathen orthodoxy. Virgil's perversion of the Erythraean verses must have been grateful in their eyes. Caligula expressed contempt for both. "He had thoughts (?)... of suppressing Homer's poems. 'For why,' said he, 'may I not do what Plato has done before me, who excluded him from his commonwealth ?' He was likewise very near (?) banishing the writings and the busts of Virgil and Livy from all libraries ; censuring one of them as ' a man of no genius and very little learning ' ; and the other as ' a verbose and careless historian.' " — Sue- ton. Calig. c. 34, Bonn's trans. 56 "He often talked of the lawyers as if he intended to abolish their profession. ' By Hercules ! ' he would say, ' I shall put it out of their power to answer any questions in law, otherwise than by referring to me ! ' " — Sueton. Calig. 34, Bonn's trans. The circumstance most likely to have prompted these remarks was as follows : The lawyers seem to have hunted up precedent or authority for compelling condemned persons to murder each other ; see note 72, and Ch. V. notes 8, 9. 57 When Caligula found the roads under Vespasian's care coated with mud he gave vent to his feelings in the utterance : Stuff his pockets with it (Dio Cass. 59, 12 ; Sueton. Vespas. 5), or, more literally, "his bosom," which the Romans used for a pocket. Seneca was admired. Caligula treated his language as "sand without lime." — Sueton. Calig. 53. 68 " He used also to complain aloud of the state of the times, because 204 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. He may, when building a dwelling near the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus,59 have indulged in some pleasantry about messing with him, or may, in a humorous moment, have addressed him some question and pretended to listen for an answer;60 yet the offensive portions of his sayings, and all, or nearly all, the cruelties and vices attributed to him, must be fabrications or misrepresentations. Seneca, though over-willing to disparage him, nowhere, I think, attributes to him personal vices or crimes. The public improvements which Caligula planned, or executed, are, to a degree at least, evidence of laudable aims,61 while his personal superintendence of workmen,62 it was not rendered remarkable by any public calamities ; for, while the reign of Augustus had been made memorable to posterity by the disaster of Varus, and that of Tiberius by the fall of the theatre at Fidenfe, his was likely to pass into oblivion from an uninterrupted series of pros- perity."— Sueton. Calig. 31, Bonn's trans. 69 Caligula lived on one hill and the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, in which the Senate usually met, was on another. He first "united the palace and Capitol by a bridge thrown above the temple of the divine Augustus. Afterwards, that he might be nearer [to senatorial business], he laid the foundations of a new dwelling in the Capitoline area." — Sueton. Calig. 22. 60 Caligula "chatted secretly with Jupiter Capitolinus, sometimes whispering and then in turn holding his ear, then speaking in a louder tone and occasionally disputing with him, . . . until over-urged, as he alleged, and voluntarily invited to become [Jupiter's] tent-fellow." — Sueton. Calig. 22. 61 "He completed the works which were left unfinished by Tiberius, namely, the temple of Augustus and the theatre of Pompey. He began, likewise, the aqueduct from the neighborhood of Tibur, and an amphi- theatre near the Septa. . . . The walls of Syracuse, which had fallen to decay by length of time, he repaired, as he likewise did the temples of the gods. He formed plans for rebuilding the palace of Polycrates at Samos, finishing the temple of the Didymrean Apollo at Miletus, and building a town on a ridge of the Alps; but, above all, for cutting through the isthmus in Aehaia ; and even sent a centurion of the first rank to measure out the work." — Sueton. Calig. 21, Bonn's trans. On visiting the Gallic sea-coast, in the neighborhood probably of Boulogne, he erected (Sueton. Calig. 46) a lighthouse. 62 Philo mentions {Embassy to Caius, 45, Paris edit. pp. 732, lines §m.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 205 and his attention at judicial tribunals or in the Senate,63 indicate industry which approximated, and perhaps equalled, his physical capacity. His administrative abil- ity may not have been very high, and his expenditure, in one instance, seems, at least, like extravagance.64 Yet, in judging his financial management, discrimination should be exercised between his own drains on his treasury and the thefts from it which illness, inexperience, or lack of special gifts disabled him from preventing. Treasury thieves were thankful after his death to find in his alleged disbursements the sole explanation of his empty treas- ury.65 In judging his character, facts, which seem credi- ble, should be carefully dissociated from the interpretation affixed to them by his enemies. 2. ORDER OF EVENTS IN HIS REIGN. Caligula's reign is no longer extant in the Annals of Tacitus. The order of its events may, even if imperfectly 26-29, 733, lines 8-11) that Caligula, while listening to him and his op- ponents, was superintending work then under way in the palace. Com- pare later exaggerations and fictions in Suetonius, Calig. 37. 63 Dio Cass. 59, 18. 64 "He made a bridge, of about three [Roman] miles and a half in length, from Baire to the mole of Puteoli, collecting trading vessels from all quarters, mooring them in two rows by their anchors, and spreading earth upon them to form a viaduct after the fashion of the Appian Way. This bridge he crossed and recrossed for two days together." — Sueto- nius, Calig. 19, Bohn's trans. Some practical reason, sufficient or in- sufficient, may have existed for this structure. He may have wished to test the applicability of floating bridges elsewhere in the empire. Some must have thought (Sueton. Ibid.) that he was testing their applicability to the Rhine. 65 The alleged gift by Caligula to Antiochus of Commagene (Sueton. Calig. 16; compare Dio Cass. 60 8) is one of the larger items invented by treasury thieves. Caligula found a full treasury at his accession, paid large legacies of Tiberius from it, and nine months afterwards (Dio Cass. 59, 2) it was empty. The date was during, or at the close of, his dangerous illness, when his revenue from Egypt had, perhaps, been in- tercepted by the conspirators there. Yet shortly afterwards, in A. D. 38, when a large fire occurred, he. had means to indemnify the sufferers. . 206 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. stated, aid some readers and serve as a starting-point for subsequent inquirers. A. D. 37. March 17 ? or 27 ? to August 31. Caligula pronounces a funeral oration on Tiberius ; pays his lega- cies ; brings home the remains of his own mother ; burns the testimony of her accusers, who had also been her accomplices ; effects, between contending factions, a truce, which includes cessation of trials for unbelief [in the heathen deities] ; sets Herod at liberty. September 31 to December 31, Caligula ill. Conspiracy of Herod and the Jewish aristocracy at Alexandria, prompted and sup- ported by the Roman Senate, breaks out in October.66 They kidnap Flaccus. A. D. 38. Caligula in the beginning of the year still convalescent.67 Philo's embassy to Caligula in midwin- ter. Macro intrusted with investigation and settlement of matters at Alexandria. Drusilla, sister of Caligula, dies. The conspiracy at Alexandria having been put down, its leaders are punished. Alexander, Philo's brother, put under arrest. Macro is probably assassinated by conspi- rators as a means of screening themselves. A. D. 39. The patricians (to screen themselves) recom- mence prosecutions which had been suspended. Domitius Afer, a popular leader, prosecuted, but acquitted. Consuls at Rome (August 31) resign or are dismissed. Popular election resorted to. Domitius Afer elected consul. Sen- ators charge against Tiberius the prosecutions instituted by themselves in his reign. Caligula convicts them from their own records. Leaves Rome (the same day ?)68 for 66 See pp. 100, 101. 67 Caligula was consul in 37, 39, 40, and 41, but not in 38. This strengthens the surmise, that lie may not have been physically able to assume that office at the beginning of the year. Further, the consuls, in their official oath (January 1), did not (Dio Cass. 59, 9) include what Tiberius had established. If Caligula had been well enough to super- intend matters, this would hardly have happened. 68 Caligula, after reproving the Senate, "went out the same day into the suburbs." — Dio Cass. 59, 16. "He did not foreannounce his departure, but, going into a suburb, he suddenly set out." — Dio Cass. 59, 21. Other events are interposed by Dio between these two. §in.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 207 the armies of Gaul and Germany. Goes for a time beyond the Rhine. Visits the north coast of Gaul. A. D. 40. Caligula, January 1, is at Lyons.69 Remains in Gaul, or its neighborhood, until about September. The aristocracy persecute the popular party and prepare for rebellion. Caligula returns to Rome about Septem- ber.70 Puts two or three conspirators or persecutors to death and banishes a considerable number. Aims at a more popular form of government. A. D. 41. Caligula is murdered January 24. Of the above events, the conspiracy, in A. D. 37, has been elsewhere narrated.71 Later occurrences need a fuller statement. The death of Macro, though it re- moved the. person best able to aid Caligula, did not free from danger the patrician instigators of what had oc- curred at Alexandria. To save themselves, they, as in A. D. 31, strove to intimidate opponents by prosecutions.72 69 Sueton. Calig. 17. 70 Suetonius {Calig. 49) says that he entered the city on his birthday, less than four months before he perished. His birthday was, according to Dio Cassius (59, 6), September 20. His death was January 24. A dif- ferent account (Dio Cassius, 59, 7 ; Sueton. Calig. 8) makes August 31 his birthday ; but this would have been nearly five months before his death. 71 See Ch. V. § vm. 72 A commencement of prosecutions must have been made (Dio Cassius, 59, 10 and close of ll) in the latter part of a. d. 38. "In those days [January, A. d. 39] and subsequently many prominent men being con- demned were punished ; not a few of these, from among such as had [at the beginning of Caligula's reign] been set at liberty, [being now condemned] on the same charges on which they had been made prisoners in the time of Tiberius. Many of the others [the less distinguished] were put to death fighting duels [by compulsion] ; and aside from mur- ders nothing was taking place. "[Caligula] conceded no favor to the multitude [the hired mob?], but [when it clamored for victims ?] did the reverse of what it wished. . . . On one occasion, threatening the whole people [a euphemism for the mob], he said, 1 1 wish that you had but one neck.' " — Dio Cass. 59, 13. The wish was prompted, not by cruelty, but by indignation at their blood- thirstiness. 208 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. Among their intended victims was Domitius Afer, a reso- lute popular leader and distinguished orator, who proved able to cope with and baffle them.73 The patricians seem to have employed a mob, which should clamor for what Caligula could not grant, that is, probably, for death, in the amphitheatre, of men con- demned by patrician courts, or disagreeable to patricians. We are specially told that they clamored for " -prose- cutors" 74 The aristocracy had contrived indirect methods for swaying, if possible, Caligula to their purposes. The mob had been taught to call him the Young Augustus. His comment thereon has already been given.75 If arrogance, or love of adulation, had been strong in Caligula, he would have shown it in the contest now commenced, and of whose import he was fully aware.76 Yet he evinces a singular freedom from such a trait. When rebuking the Senate for its misrepresentation of Tiberius, his words were : " Towards me, who am yet in office, such conduct might be permissible, but you are committing no ordinary injustice in thus maligning your former ruler." 77 At a later date he ordered that to the birthdays of Tiberius and Drusilla equal public respect should be shown as to that of Augustus ; 78 but of respect 73 "Among the accused was Domitius Afer, whose peril was unex- pected, and his escape more wonderful." — Dio Cass. 59, 19. Compare, in regard to him, Tacitus, An. 4, 52. 74 Dio Cass. 59, 13. Compare, touching prosecutors, Appendix, Xote C. Probably the prosecutors thus clamored for were acting on behalf of the popular party. It was doubtless in some such case or cases that Calig- ula commended (Sueton. Calig. 29) his own inflexibility. 75 See note 55. 76 After convicting the Senate of murders which it was charging upon Tiberius, Caligula represented the latter, though dead, as saying to him : "They [the senators] all hate you and desire your death" (Dio Cass. 59, 16) ; and in his subsequent letter from Gaul, " He wrote ... to the Senate as if he had escaped a great conspiracy." — Dio Cass. 59, 23. 77 Dio Cass. 59, 16. 78 Dio Cass. 59, 24. This meant that the feelings of the popular party should be respected equally as those of the patricians. §iil] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 209 towards his own birthday he omits any mention. These are not the sayings of an arrogant or vainglorious man, and the veneration which he more than once showed for one so unlike himself in many respects as the Emperor Tiberius, should weigh not a little in determining his own aims and desires. Caligula, in visiting, without prior notice, the armies of Gaul and Germany, was prompted by knowledge of a conspiracy already under way there, headed by members of his own family. Officers in those armies were in sym- pathy with it and needed elimination.79 The common soldiers, as in A. d. 14, showed no predilection for aristo- cratic plans. Two sisters of Caligula — the two to whom he had not intrusted the government during his illness — were concerned in the rebellion, and were, on that account, banished.80 Probably some of the Gallic aris- tocracy co-operated or had been co-operating with that of Rome.81 When patricians gained power, after Caligula's death, they, though not immediately, elected members of the Gallic aristocracy to seats in the Senate.82 Whether at Rome during Caligula's absence the Senate attempted open rebellion is not clear. Its preparations had unquestionably been made. Among its acts of ter- rorism for intimidating the popular party, there is one of which the details are scanty, but it is almost the only prosecution in this reign of which any details whatever have been vouchsafed us. Pomponius, a relative of Caligula, was a poet of cul- ture and learning, an intimate friend of the elder Pliny, who wrote his life.83 A remark of his biographer, in- 79 Suetonius {Calig. 44) mentions the dismissal of officers, assigning, however, as reasons what must have been patrician misrepresentations. 80 Sueton. Calig. 24 ; Dio Cass. 59, 22. 81 Caligula " murdered [?] some [in Gaul] as plotting revolution, others as conspirators against himself, . . . commanding the wealthiest of them [the Gauls] to be put to death." — Dio Cass. 59, 21, 22. 82 Tacitus, An. 11, 23-25. Compare the sympathy of the Jewish with the Roman aristocracy in Ch. V. § vin. 83 Tacitus, An. 5, 8. Pliny, Sen., Nat. Hist. 7, 18, 3; Pliny, Jim. 3, 5, 3. " In our times [a. d. 74] Pomponius Secundus fully equals N 210 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. signia . . . cognoscuntur . . . in Pomponio consulari poeta nunquam ructasse, seems fairly to imply that his habits of eating and drinking must have been temperate. His Domitius Aferin dignity or enduring fame." — de Orator. Dial. 13. Pliny- mentions (14, 6, 3) having in his Life of Pomponius described a supper given by the latter to Caligula, ccenamque quam Principi [Princeps ?] illi dedit. As this supper took place A. d. 40 or 41 (one hundred and sixty years after the consulship of L. Opimiusj, it maybe a question whether some transcriber has not substituted Principi for Princeps. If so, the sup- per described by Pliny was the one given to Pomponius by Caligula. The former was at that date in no condition to make a feast. According to Dio Cassius(59,29), Caligula "made a certain feast in the palace [in a. d. 41]. . . . Pomponius Secundus, then consul, was carried in at the mo- ment when the provisions were placed on the table. Sitting [reclining ?] at the feet of Caligula, and €iuoKr)TTui>, leaning on them constantly, he tenderly kissed them." The fact that he was carried in, and the fact mentioned by Seneca, that he was subsequently helpless to give himself a drink of water, suggest that he, equally as his wife or freedwoman, had been crippled by brutal treatment at the hands of his enemies. The foregoing incident must be the one to which Seneca refers, though some copyist, misled by the abbreviation (Pomp.) has substituted another name, unless we assume two consular relatives of Caligula (one of them unknown to our present published consular lists) as both rescued from their enemies, and expressing their feelings in the same manner. " Caius Caesar [that is, Caligula] granted life to Pompeius Pennus, — if he who does not take away can be regarded as giving ; then to him [when] set at liberty and giving thanks, he extended his left foot to be kissed. Those who excuse it, and deny that it was prompted by insolence, say that he wished to show his gilded, or rather his golden, sock splendid with jewels. Be it so. "What more shameful than that a consular man kissed gold and jewels ? " — Seneca, De Benefic. 2, 12, 1. His fate after the murder of his protector is elsewhere portrayed : " Are you richer than Pompeius, to whom — when Caius, previously his relative, latterly his host, had opened the home of Csesar, that he might shut up his own — bread and water were wanting 1 "When he owned so many streams rising and falling on his own property, he begged drops of water ; he perished from hunger and thirst in the palace of his relative, whilst an heir gave a public funeral to him who had been starved." — Seneca, De Tranquil. An. 11, 8. Such appeals to imagination and efforts at dramatic effect are a poor substitute for indignation at gross wrong. Pomponius may have been a literary rival of Seneca. §m.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 211 sister (or else his daughter) was prosecuted seventeen years later, as will appear in Nero's reign, for observance of Foreign Kites, that is, of Judaism. He himself had already, in the reign of Tiberius, after the rebellion of A. D. 31, been among those prosecuted by patricians for unbelief,84 and after a confinement of seven years had been set at liberty by the truce which Caligula on his accession effected between contending parties.85 During the latter's absence in Gaul, Pomponius must have been rearrested, and one 88 at least of his freeclwomen was tor- tured ineffectually to make her testify against him. He himself would seem also to have been tortured until he was incapable of standing or moving. Caligula provided for the woman, took Pomponius to his own house and made an entertainment for him, at which the unfortunate man needed to be carried in. He reclined next below Caligula, whose foot, possibly, served him for a pillow. The warm- hearted poet kissed the foot on or near which his head rested. It was perhaps the only wray in which, crippled as he was, he could testify his feelings towards his kindly relative. When Caligula, shortly afterwards, was mur- dered, his domestics must have lied, and Pomponius, un- able to help himself, perished from want. 84 See in the Appendix, Note G, foot-note 114. Caligula selected es- pecially the prosecutions for unbelief as of senatorial origin. 85 Caligula on his accession "set at liberty those in prison (of whom one was Quintus [?] Pomponius Secundus [Tac. An. 6, is], who for seven years after his consulate had been held in duress in his house) and put an end to the accusations for unbelief, from which especially he saw that the prisoners were suffering." — Dio Cass. 59,6. The real motive for prosecuting these men was their connection with the popular party. Pom- ponius had shielded (Tac. An. 5, S) a friend of Sejanus and (Pliny, 13, 26, i) kept relics of the Gracchi. 86 Dio Cassius (59, 26) applies to the woman the ambiguous term iraipa, wife or mistress. Porrtponius may have married an educated freedwoman whose position her tormentors sought to obscure. More probably she sus- tained neither relation to him, and they merely aimed by defaming her to diminish sympathy. The remarks by Josephus (Antiq. 19, 1, 5) on the woman's antecedents are in a connection which bears unmistakable marks of patrician origin. 212 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIIL Patrician accounts are silent as to the sufferings of Pomponius, and charge the brutal usage of his i'reed- woman, not upon their own party, but upon Caligula, to whom, as to Tiberius, they attributed their own crimes.87 In their eyes, the only remarkable thing in the whole transaction is a reward given a freedwoman for not testi- fying against her innocent patron, from which they doubt- less argued that their own slaves and freedmen should not be permitted to testify against themselves when they had committed crime.88 We now go back. Caligula, who had been absent about a year, turned to- wards Rome. He told the messengers sent to him that he would bring his sword with him. He announced that he no longer wished to be regarded either as a member or primate of the Senate ; that he was returning to the knights and the people.89 The mass of citizens were in his favor, and therefore open conspiracy could not be maintained. A few connected with it were executed and a large number were banished. Whether those executed 87 See Appendix, Note G, foot-note 114. 88 "He discharged Pomponius, who had been accused of conspiracy against himself, [?] because he had been betrayed by a friend [?] ; and to the man's companion he not onty did no harm because of her having given no testimony when tortured, but even remunerated her with property." — Dio Cass. 59, 26. " He gave to a freedwoman eighty thousand sesterces for not discovering a crime committed by her patron, though she had been put to exquisite torture for that purpose." — Sueton. Calig. 16, Bohn's trans. Josephus (Antiq. 19, 1, 5) calls the man Pompedius. On patrician views of testimony by slave or freedman against master or patron, see pp. 76, 77 ; compare Ch. V. § 5 ; also Dio Cass. 60, 15, 16. 89 Caligula "announced also that he would return to those only who were wishing him, namely, the equestrian order and the people, for he would no longer be a member or presiding officer of the Senate." — Sue- tonius, Calig. 49. The senators had murdered (Sueton. Calig. 28) one of their own number in the Senate house. An ambiguous passage of Sen- neca (" Rulers do not [as under Caius] . . . feel alarm at the sight of every ship." — Ad Polyb. 32, 4), raises suspicion that their fleet may, as in A. D. 37 (see p. 101) have murdered provincial rulers, or persons exiled by themselves and by their courts, a suspicion strengthened by the charge against Caligula of such murders (Sueton. Calig. 28 ; Philo, Aguinst Flac. 21). §iii.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 213 were condemned for conspiracy, or for crimes against the popular party, is a point on which we have no satisfactory evidence. The patricians, who held the law-making and controlled the judicial power, had certainly committed crimes enough against their opponents. Caligula, as a protection to the mass of citizens, under- took to restore, or enlarge, their former electoral powers.90 This was in the eyes of patricians an unpardonable offence, and insured his assassination 91 If an impulsive, though kind-hearted man, had, in con- fronting the Senate, been so provoked by its judicial murders and legalized crime as to condemn its members through impatience rather than because of careful inves- tigation into the doings of each individual, his failing could be readily comprehended. Yet Seneca, who was disposed to point out his weak rather than his good points,92 who was willing even to repeat partisan per- versions of his conduct, nowhere names any one as un- justly put to death by him. The matters of dress, to which he excepts in connection with executions, imply that graver subjects of fault-finding were absent.93 90 The Senate (see Ch. V. § x. 1) had, in A. P. 14, usurped the elec- toral rights of popular assemblies. Caligula "restored electoral assem- blies to the citizens and multitude [centuries and tribes ?)." — Dio Cass. 59,9 ; compare 59, 20. "He tried also, by recalling the custom of Co- mitia, to restore suffrage to the citizens." — Sueton. Calig. 16. 91 Chasrea, who assassinated Caligula, had been active (see Tacitus, An. 1, 32) in the attempted rebellion of A. D. 14, against Tiberius. 92 Seneca moved in patrician society, and could not escape its influ- ence. He was constitutionally the reverse of Caligula, who had more- over (see note 57) criticised his style, and in one instance (Dio Cass. 59, in) had come into collision with him in the Senate. Seneca may have felt that it cost him less self-respect to make political capital at expense of Caligula than of any one else. Compare note 131. 93 " Caius Caesar put to death by scourging, in one day, Sextus Papinius, whose father was of consular rank ; Betilienus Bassus, his quaestor, the son of his procurator, and other Roman knights and senators. .... Afterwards, . . . while walking with matrons and senators in the prom- enade of his maternal gardens, he had some of them [the criminals] exe- cuted by candlelight. What urgency was there ? What danger, either 214 JUDAISM AT ROME. CH. VIII. If Caligula applied the laws, at this date, with undue severity, against any offenders, it was probably in requital against such as had brutally misapplied them towards in- dividuals of the popular party.94 He had become satisfied that Eome, ruled by the aristocracy, peopled largely by its slaves and retainers, and burdened with its legislation and with judicial decisions in its favor, was ill-adapted to the maintenance of justice. He thought of removing the government to Antium, but subsequently decided on taking it to Alexandria.95 If the question be asked why Caligula, who, as we may infer from the passage of Seneca already quoted, put but three senators to death, should in subsequent times have been more maligned than his successor, who executed thirty or thirty-five,96 the answer is, that Claudius co- private or public, did one night threaten ? How little sacrifice would it have been to have awaited daylight, so that he should not whilst wear- ing slippers [!] put to death senators of the Roman people? ... In this place it will be answered : ' A great thing if he apportioned to scourge and fire three senators as if they had been criminal slaves, the man who thought of killing the whole Senate, who wished [see note 72] that the Roman people had but one neck.' . . . What is so unheard of as nocturnal punishment ?" — Seneca, De Ira, 3,18, 3-19, 2. Seneca does not intimate that scourge (compare Smith, Diet, of Antiq. p. 1190, col. 2) and fire were unusual punishments, except for patricians. Proba- bly the ruling class had established or re-established them for certain offences. Dio Cassius (59, 7) mentions the wearing of slippers by people of rank as frequent at public games, and not infrequent on the judicial tribunal, though Tiberius had intermitted it. The Betillinus Cassius whom he mentions (59, 25) as executed in a. d. 40 is probably the above Bassus, who may, or may not, be the one mentioned in Ch. V. note 80. 94 The attendance of Capito at his son's execution is said (Dio Cass. 59, 25) to have been compulsory. This may be incorrect, or may have been in requital of similar action by him towards some member of the popular party. Seneca, who was certainly disposed to paint Caligula un- favorably, omits mention of the above (De Ira, 3, 18, 3) from his account of the son's execution. 93 Sueton. Calig. 49. 93 Claudius put to death "thirty-five senators and more than three hundred Roman knights." — Sueton. Claud. 29. Another authority § in] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 215 operated with the patrician majority, murdering those whom it wished murdered. Calisnila stood in its wav, protecting alike the popular party, the monotheists, and the patrician minority. 3. THE ALLEGED STATUE FOR THE JEWISH TEMPLE. A patrician Jew, connected unquestionably with the conspiracy of A. D. 37 against Caligula, charges that he purposed erecting his statue in the temple at Jerusalem. The charge comes from a suspicious source, and will not bear scrutiny. Caligula began his reign with aversion or distaste for statues of himself.97 Philo, who first mentions the charge against him of intending to erect his statue in the temple at Jerusalem, had abundant motive and opportunity for learning anv order touching it. Yet he informs us that " no no plainly worded order to that effect had been issued.98 We can safely assume, therefore, that the letters on the subject mentioned in Josephus" are spurious. A statement surrounded by untruths is to be received with distrust, especially if an urgent motive for its fabri- cation be obvious. The distrust is not diminished by the method of Philo's narrative, who, instead of a plain state- ment, substitutes a scene.100 mentions "thirty senators killed, three hundred and fifteen Roman knights, and many (221) others." — De Morte Claudii Ludus, 14, 1, in Seneca, Opp. Philos. Vol. 2, p. 299. 97 Dio Cassius (59, a) speaks of Caligula as "at first forbidding any one to set up images of himself." According to a Jew, "Caius managed public affairs with very great magnanimity during the first and second year of his reign, and behaved himself with such moderation that he gained the good-will both of the Romans themselves and of his other subjects." — Josephus, Antiq. 18, 7, 2, Winston's trans. 98 " The letter respecting the erection of the statue was written not in plain terms." — Philo, Embassy to Caius, 31, Bonn's trans. ; Paris edit. p. 703, lines 1, 2. If it was not written in plain terms, we can safely infer that it was not written by Caligula. Compare, in note 109, the order actually sent. 99 Josephus, Antiq. 18, 8, 2 and 8. 100 "While we were anxiously considering, ... a man arrived, with 216 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. A^ain : the storv of Caligula's statue can neither be reconciled with the statements of its earliest narrator, nor with the known facts of history. Philo alleges that, wThilst he and other ambassadors from Alexandria were awaiting audience from Caligula, the order, or at least the purpose of the latter to erect his statue, became known, and that some of the latter's correspondence with Petro- nius touching it took place at the subsequent harvest.101 If we now examine into the date of these events, we learn from Philo that he and his companions came to Rome in midwinter,102 and at a later date followed Caligula to bloodshot eyes, and looking very much troubled, out of breath and pal- pitating, and leading us away to a little distance from the rest (for there were several persons near), he said, 'Have you heard the news ? ' And then, when he was about to tell us what it was, he stopped, because of the abundance of tears that rose up to choke his utterance. And, begin- ning again, he was a second and a third time stopped in the same manner. And we, seeing this, were much alarmed and agitated by suspense, and entreated him to tell us what the circumstance was on account of which he said that he had come ; for he could not have come merely to weep before so many witnesses. 'If then,' said we, 'you have any real cause for tears, do not keep your grief to yourself; we have been long ago well accustomed to misfortune.' ' ' And he, with difficulty, sobbing aloud, and in a broken voice, spoke as follows: 'Our temple is destroyed! Caius has ordered a colossal statue of himself to be erected in the holy of holies, having his own name inscribed upon it with the title of Jupiter ! ' And while we were all struck dumb with astonishment and terror at what he told us, and stood still deprived of all motion (for we stood there mute and in despair, ready to fall to the ground with fear and sorrow, the very muscles of our bodies being deprived of all strength by the news which we had heard), others arrived bearing the same sad tale." — Philo, Embassy to Caius, 29, Bonn's trans. ; Opp. Paris edit. pp. 700, 701. The statements or insinuations of Tacitus {An. 12, 54 ; Hist. 5, 9) will appear in our next two sections. 101 Petronius "determined to write a letter to Caius. ... It was just at the moment the very height of the wheat harvest and of all the other cereal crops. " — Philo, Embassy, 33, Bonn's trans.; Opp. Paris edit. pp. 723, 724. Compare Embassy, 34 ; Opp. Paris edit. pp. 723, 724. xw Philo, Embassy, 29; Opp. Paris edit. p. 701, line 10! §ra.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 217 Dicaearchia,103 otherwise called Puteoli, where the latter's intention, or order, became known. The embassy cannot have taken place in the winter of 40-41, for Caligula, who was murdered January 24, could not have corresponded with any one during the subsequent harvest. That winter's events also preclude the supposition that Caligula could have been absent at Dicsearchia to rusticate, or to superintend building. It cannot have taken place in the winter of 39 - 40, for Caligula was then absent from Italy. We must select, therefore, between the winters of 37-38 and 38-39. If any credit can be attached to Philo's own statements, we must assume the former of these two winters, since the embassy took place but a short time after Herod's arrival at Alexandria, in the autumn of 37.10i This accords moreover with the con- dition of things in Alexandria, which was more likely to occasion an embassy in that, than in the subsequent winter. Caligula also was not unlikely after his illness to visit the seaside. If we now assume even that the order was not given before the spring of 38, yet the two suppositions, that Caligula's death interrupted its execution, and that his ^3 Philo, Embassy, 29 ; Opp. Paris edit. p. 700, lines 34, 35. 104 "This memorial [brought by the Embassy] was nearly an abridg- ment of a longer petition which we had sent to him A short time before by the hand of King Agrippa ; for he by chance was staying for a short time in the city [of Alexandria] while on his way into Syria to take pos- session of the kingdom which had been given him." — Philo, Embassy, 28, Bohn's trans.; Opp. Paris edit. p. 700, lines 11-13. In the tract, Against Flaccus, Philo's narrative, as already mentioned on page 100, implies that Herod arrived in September, or the early part of October, A. D. 37. Touching the alleged memorial forwarded by Herod, compare Against Flaccus, 12; Opp. Paris edit. pp. 672, 673. If Herod carried this letter, as the above implies, to Rome, then he cannot have continued his journey to Syria. He may, even if he returned as a prisoner, have hoped through Antonia, his mother's friend, to influence her grandson, the emperor. Philo's brother, her fiscal agent, may have sought her kindly intervention. 10 218 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. second letter reached Petronius after his assassination, become absurdities. Further : The Jews during Caligula's reign multiplied at Rome to such a degree, that after his death the party in power assigned, though falsely, the fear of disturbance as a reason for their non-expulsion. The aristocracy were their enemies and this increase must therefore imply that Caligula had been their friend. The same is implied by the efforts of Philo, and of the writers whom Josephus copied,105 to picture Herod as an intimate friend of Caligula whom the latter was loath to disoblige. It is yet further implied by the action of Herod, who in the year 41, when he became king, hung up in the temple a gold chain106 which he professed to have received as a present from Caligula, and which he must have intended as evidence before the eyes of all beholders, that a friend of Caligula came to rule the Jews. To appreciate the true import of his action, let us sup- pose a case scantly differing from common belief. Let us imagine that Herod had hung up in the temple a costly gift, alleging it to be from his near and intimate friend Beelzebub. Politically such a gift could, in a monothe- istic community, have operated nothing but injury to its recipient, and its suspension in the temple would have shocked Jewish feeling. Yet if popular Jewish views of Caligula at the date of his death had been those which 105 Philo puts into Caligula's mouth the utterance: " Agrippa [Herod], who is my most intimate and dearest friend and one bound to me by so many benefits." — Embassy, 35, Bonn's trans.; Opp. Paris edit. p. 724, line 27. According to Josephus, "King Agrippa, who now [at a date after the statue had been ordered] lived at Rome, was more and more in [the] favor of Cains." — Antiq. 18, 8, 7, Whiston's trans. That writer makes Caligula remark to Herod: "It would be a base thing for me to be conquered by thy affection ; I am, therefore, desirous to make thee amends for everything, in which I have been any way for- merly deficient ; for all that I have bestowed on thee, that may be called my gifts, is but little. Everything that may contribute to thy happiness shall be at thy service, and that cheerfully, and so far as my ability will reach." — Ibid., Whiston's trans. 106 Josephus, Antiq. 19, 6, 1. §iii.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 219 the aristocracy subsequently disseminated, a gift from Caligula and one from Beelzebub would in popular esti- mation have stood on a par. The following may approximate to a correct narrative of what actually transpired. The effort at rebellion in Alexandria was accompanied by some slight or serious demonstration of the same kind on the not distant sea- coast west of Judaea. The governor of Syria was at once replaced by another, Petronius, a man who, according to both Philo and Josephus, had no unfriendliness to the Jews. Sufficient troops were at once ordered from Syria and the Euphrates to render any such effort hopeless.107 Accompanying circumstances need a word of explanation. Effigies of friends were a common ornament in house- holds. Public display or public destruction of such effigies implied political friendship, or hostility, to the person whom, or the cause which, they represented.108 Thus, had Roman customs prevailed among us during our late rebellion, individuals who wished to indicate their political sympathies would, instead of hanging from their window a flag of the United States, or else of the Con- federacy, have placed an effigy of Abraham Lincoln or of Jefferson Davis in front of their premises. The enemies of Caligula had been throwing down his effigies and those of his relatives, expressing thereby a wish to over- throw his government. Caligula wrote, that inside of Jerusalem the prevention of images, or non-Jewish sacri- fices, should be permitted, but that if any one in the adjacent countries interfered with images of himself or family, or with sacrifices in their behalf, he should be called to account.109 His views of images or sacrifices 107 Josephus, Antiq. 18, 8, i ; Philo, Embassy, 31 ; Opp. Paris edit, p. 703. Both these writers represent the movement of troops as precau- tionary against trouble in setting up the statue. 108 See the attempted destruction of Piso's statues, Tacitus, An. 3, 14. Livilla's are mentioned as destroyed, Tacitus, An. 6, 2 ; those also of Sejanus, Dio Cass, 58, 11 ; and of Vitellius, Tacitus, Hist. 3, 85. 109 Caligula "wrote : If in the adjoining countries, except only the metropolis, any person wishing to erect altars, or temples, or images, 220 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VITL cannot be inferred from this order. The army, when dan- ger was over, returned to its former quarters.110 After Caligula's death, the Jewish aristocracy, either through malignity or to mitigate the odium under which they labored as associates of his murderers, undertook to defame him. In this they were aided by the following circumstances. The Alexandrine populace had seen the Jewish aristocracy there prompting the destruction of Caligula's images at a moment when he was dangerously ill, and when the popular party in every land was anx- iously hoping and petitioning for his recovery. In their indignation they had carried one of his images triumph- antly into a synagogue, perhaps into one where his chief enemies gathered.111 Again : Caligula's pleasantries with or statues, are hindered from sacrificing [to the gods] in behalf of myself or relatives, punish at once those who hinder them, or else bring them be- fore you." — Philo, Embassy, 42, Opp., Paris edit. p. 730, lines 12-15. That heathens should sacrifice for the welfare of Caligula and his family implies no more desire on their part to deify him than on the part of Jews, who sacrificed for the same object. Yet Philo represents himself, how- ever untruthfully, as saying to Caligula: "We did sacrifice, and we offered up entire hecatombs, the blood of which we poured in a libation upon the altar, and the flesh we did not carry to our homes to make a feast and banquet upon it, as it is the custom of some people to do, but we committed the victims entire to the sacred flame as a burnt offering ; and we have done this three times already, and not once only : on the first occasion when you succeeded to the empire, and the second time when you recovered from that terrible disease with which all the habitable world was [through sympathy] afflicted at the same time, and the third time we sacrificed in hope of your victory over the Germans." — Philo, Embassy, 45, Bohn's trans. ; Opp., Paris edit. p. 732, lines 20-25. The movement into Germany wras of much later date than this Embassy, and cannot have been mentioned by Philo in any speech to Caligula. Any sacrifice for recovery of the latter can scarcely have been offered by Jews in rebellion against him. 110 Petronius "took the army out of Ptolemais and returned to Anti- och." — Josephus, Wars, 2, 10, 5, Winston's trans. This is represented as occurring in the spring, though whether in that of 38, or of some later year, is open to surmise. 111 The populace "set up in every [?] one of them [the synagogues] §iii.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 221 regard to Castor and Pollux, or Jupiter, admitted, at a distance, of serious misrepresentation. Further : in the latter part of Caligula's reign — probably when he was about to return from Gaul — persons who had compro- mised themselves must have undertaken, by ridiculous homage of his statues, to divert indignation from their misdeeds.112 There is no reason to suppose that he thanked them for it, or that he was in the least degree imposed upon by it. In course of time the Jewish and Roman aristocracies obtained partial credence for their falsehoods concerning Caligula. The former body must have overdone its in- tended work by creating a belief that the head of the images of Caius ; and in the greatest and most conspicuous and most celebrated of them they erected a brazen statue of him borne on a four- horse chariot."— Philo, Embassy. 20, Bonn's trans. ; Opp. Paris edit. p. 695. Jews of the popular party shared doubtless the indignation against their rulers, and may in some cases have cared but little for the method of its manifestation. The aristocratic synagogues had been orna- mented by their owners (Philo, Ibid.) with shields, crowns, pillars, and inscriptions in honor of the emperor, that is, probably, of Augustus. 112 " He (?) also instituted a temple and priests, with choicest victims, in honor of his own divinity. In his temple stood a statue of gold, the exact image of himself, which was daily dressed in garments correspond- ing with those he wore himself. The most opulent persons in the city offered themselves as candidates for the honor of being his priests, and purchased it successively at an immense price. The victims were fla- mingos, peacocks, bustards, guinea-fowls, turkey and pheasant hens, each sacrificed on their respective days." — Sueton. Calig. 22, Bonn's trans. Caligula, as already stated in note 97, had, during the first half, at least, of his reign, a repugnance to images, and during most of its lat- ter half was absent in Gaul. The foregoing obsequiousness was, no doubt, as in the case of Tiberius and Sejanus (see Appendix, Note G, foot-note 48), unauthorized by the person towards whom it was shown. To Caligula, if in Gaul, it may even have been unknown. If a temple and priests were instituted to him, it must have been done by the fright- ened Senate, who had been torturing his relatives and friends. It had in A. d. 39, after he rebuked it for its falsehoods concerning Tiberius, re- sorted to the same childish folly of voting sacrifices to his clemency (Dio Cass. 59, 10), though he had left the city before the vote was passed. 222 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. Koman Empire was naturally God's chief opponent. This belief is clearly discernible eleven or twelve years after Caligula's death, when Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome ; it gained additional strength from the war which commenced under Nero, and it eventuated in a concep- tion called Antichrist, which has not yet died out. § IV. Claudius. A Reign of Patricianism and Heathen- ism. After the assassination of Caligula (January 24, a. d. 41) a brief struggle placed the patricians in power, with Claudius as emperor. Herod, their agent in the Alexan- drine rebellion, was at once rewarded with a large king- dom. Lysimachus, brother of Philo, and head as it would seem of patrician Judaism at Alexandria, was released from imprisonment,113 and the Jewish commonalty in that city, for it must have been they who rebelled against the new arrangement, were crushed.114 At Eome the expulsion of Jews must have been dis- cussed but deferred, not for the reason assigned by Dio Cassius, but because of the political embarrassment which it would have caused to Herod and to the Jewish aris- tocracy, allies whom patricianism needed to strengthen. For the same reason prosecutions for unbelief must have been intermitted.115 A decree was, however, issued for restricting Judaism and Gentile monotheism at Eome, and therewith perhaps for abolishing clubs of the popu- lar party.116 113 Josephus, Antiq. 19, 5, 1. 114 Josephus, Antiq. 19, 5, 2. Tacitus would like us to believe {An. 12, 54) that a rebellion of the same date in Judtea was against Caligula, and that it quieted down on the accession of Claudius. 115 Claudius "in like manner put an end, not in his edicts alone, but practically, to prosecution for unbelief." — Dio Cassius, 60, 3. 115 " He did not indeed expel the Jews, who had multiplied again so that, because of their number, they could with difficulty be kept out of the city unless at the cost of a disturbance ; but he forbade the assembling of such as lived according to their law. "He also dissolved the [heathen? or monotheist?] associations (iraipei- §iv.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 41-51. 223 The faction in power commenced an era of terrorism towards its antagonists of every grade. The murder of slaves under circumstances of refined cruelty has been already narrated.117 Citizens of all classes were put to torture.118 Body guards were murdered.119 Executions must have been constantly going on.120 Senators distaste- ful to the majority were driven out. Equestrians of whose influence the Senate felt a need were enrolled, and the fact claims much reflection that some of these pre- as) which had been reintroduced by Cains [ Caligula], and seeing that it was useless to forbid the multitude any course of action unless their daily course of life were at the same time corrected, he closed the taverns and forbade the sale of cooked meat or warm water, and punished some who disobeyed this enactment." — Dio Cassius, 60, 6. The last paragraph might be understood as aimed simply against the popular party, but a previous prosecution of some one for unbelief because he had sold warm water (Dio Cassius, 59, 11 ) suggests that the article may have been spe- cially used in some way by adherents of Judaism. If the associations were monotheistic, the inference would become probable that they had been suppressed in a. d. 19 and reintroduced in A. D. 37, as part of the compromise which Caligula effected at his accession. It may have been at this same date that Claudius "totally abolished [at Rome ?] the Druid religion, which among Gallos inhabitants of Gaul was dreadfully cruel, and which had by Augustus been interdicted only to citizens." — Sueton. Claud. 25. If Pliny {Nat. Hist. 30, 4, l) be correct that the same had been done under Tiberius, its date must have been under A. D. 19 or 31, during one of the senatorial rebellions against that emperor. Then, or under Claudius, it merely meant that the Senate had no wish to tolerate what it did not control. Compare Appendix, Note A, foot-note 7. 117 See pp. 76, 77, with which compare note 72 of this chapter. us «*They used slaves and freedmen as witnesses against their masters. They put to the torture these [masters] and others, some even the high- est born, not merely foreigners but citizens; not merely plebeians but equestrians and senators." — Dio Cass. 60, 15. The party which per- petrated this was the one which had always been vociferous against using the testimony of slaves against their masters or of freedmen against their patrons. 119 Josephus, Antiq. 19, 5, 1 ; quoted in Ch. V. note 109. 120 See note 96. 224 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. ferred suicide to acceptance of a seat in such a body.121 Their repugnance may have been due to moral sense or political feeling or to both combined. Reluctant or luke- warm senators were kept within reach of coercion from their colleagues by a law that no senator should go more than seven miles from Eome without imperial permis- sion.122 Political preferences were at that date manifested by each one setting up, probably before his dwelling, the picture or statue or statuette of his political leader. To the ruling class any such admiration of popular leaders would be intolerable. The removal and prohibition of images123 applied doubtless to those of their opponents, not to those of their favorites. It is significant of un- abated popular affection for Caligula that his images had to be removed stealthily by night.124 Reaction would by many of its supporters have been deemed incomplete unless some outward attention to heathen religious rites were enforced. In determining 121 Claudius "rebuked so severely those (equestrians) who disobeyed [a summons to convene with the Senate] that some committed suicide." — Dio Cass. 60, 11. " From those who declined the senatorial dignity he took away the equestrian." — Sueton. Claud. 24, Bohn's trans. Com- pare Ch. VII. note 61, and the utterance of Caligula in note 89 of the present chapter. In A. D. 47 a Gaul went to Carthage (Dio Cass. 60, 2P) that he might avoid being made senator. 122 Suidas, art. Klaudios. Compare an exception to the law made in A. r>. 49, ob egrcgiam in Patres reverentiam, "because of conspicuous deference to the Senate." — Tac. An. 12, 23. Conscious tyranny begets suspicion. The custom was initiated of searching every one, man or woman (Dio Cass. 60, ."), who approached the emperor, nor was it inter- mitted until the accession of Vespasian. 123 " Since the city was filled with a multitude of images, — for it was lawful, without restraint to all who wished, to publicly set them up in delineations, or in brass or stone, — [Claudius] removed most of them elsewhere, and for the future forbade any private person, without permis- sion of the Senate, to do such a thing, unless when building or repair- ing some structure." — Dio Cass. 60, 25. 124 Claudius "secretly by night put out of sight all his [Caligula's] images." — Dio Cass. 60, 4. §iv.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 41-51. 225 how these resuscitated religious observances were received by Komans, we can facilitate our work by classifying them. Those which ministered to eating, drinking, and idleness admitted temporary revival without difficulty. The aristocracy, as the moneyed class, were likely to share the suffering from popular excess in this direction and were soon glad to co-operate in curbing it.125 But ob- servances which ministered to no human appetite or pas- sion needed repeated governmental effort to prevent their neglect or extinction.126 Seneca may have deferred pub- 125 In A. D. 43, Claudius "put an end to many of the sacrifices and festivals, for the largest portion of the year was wasted on them, and the injury thereby to the public was not small. He, therefore, abrogated those, and contracted [the duration of] as many others as possible." — Dio Cass. 60, 17. 126 Tacitus tells us, under A. D. 47, Claudius "called the attention of the Senate to the college of soothsayers, that the oldest [religious] science of Italy might not die out through neglect. [He said that] ' often during adverse circumstances of the republic [persons] had been sent for, by whose direction ceremonies had been re-established and thereafter more correctly conducted ; [that] the nobility, primores, of Etruria had of their own accord, or under prompting from the Roman Fathers, retained the knowledge and taught it to their slaves, in familias propagasse, which was now more negligently done because of public apathy towards good arts, and because foreign superstitions are gaining strength. All things indeed are at present [he said] prosperous, but thanks should be given to the benignity of the gods.' "That the sacred rites should not, through uncertainty touching [the manner of] their observance, be obliterated by [existing] prosperity, it was thereupon enacted by the Senate that the chief priests should ex- amine what observances of the soothsayers ought to be retained and put upon a better footing." — Tacitus, An. 11, 15. Several things in the foregoing extract claim attention. It is a confession that the patricians, though constantly prosecuting others for unbelief, were utterly ignorant of the so-called religion which they pre- tended to uphold. The statement that only in public calamity had it been customary to give much attention to religious rites confirms, if con- firmation were needed, the view that these were not supposed to have a bearing on morality. If the method of conducting these had to be as- certained by inquiry from the aristocrac}^ of Etruria, there must have been utter inattention to the subject at Rome. And if this Etrurian 10* 0 226 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. lishing his uncomplimentary description of these observ- ances until after the death of Claudius, when it could be more safely done.127 The order of nature did not always accommodate it- self to the wants of reactionaries, and in one instance they were placed by it in a somewhat ridiculous position. aristocracy needed prompting from the Roman Senate to do that which the Senate itself utterly neglected, we can reasonably infer that neither party had much affection for their task. Teaching slaves would scarcely impart to them an interest which the teachers did not feel, or a knowl- edge of which they were destitute. It is more than possible that, if a wealthy Etrurian sent such a learned slave to teach the Roman officials their duty, one half of his instructions would be the mere inventions of himself or his master. The sacrifice of a sow in treaty-making (Sueton. Claud. 25) could be confidently adopted as anti-Jewish. The mention of "superstitions" in the plural was an effort at self- deception. Christianity, even five years later than this, was regarded at Rome as a part of Judaism ; and this being assumed, there was no for- eign religion save Judaism and no native one either, which was engaged in public teaching. No religion save monotheism was gaining ground. 127 "The gods themselves, if they desire such things, ought not to re- ceive worship from any race of men. . . . Madness [however] once a year [as in some Egyptian rites previously mentioned] is bearable. Go to the Capitol. You will be ashamed of the office — assumed by empty [headed] excitement — of publicly displaying its senselessness. One places can- dles [for numina read lumina] before a god ; another announces the hour of day to Jupiter; another is lictor ; another is anointer, who with mean- ingless motion of his arms imitates an anointer. There are feminine hair-dressers for Juno and Minerva, who standing far, not merely from the images, but from the temple, move their fingers as if ornamenting [a head]. Some women hold a looking-glass, . . . some sit in the Capitol who think that Jupiter is in love with them, nor are they [on that ac- count] afraid of Juno : ... all which things a wise man servabit will uphold (!) as legal commands, but not as acceptable to the gods." — Seneca, quoted by Augustine, De Civitate Dei, 6, 10, 11. Another writer says of the emperor: " Upon the sight of any ominous bird in the city or Capitol, he issued an order for a supplication, the words of which ... he recited in the presence of the people, who re- peated them after him; all workmen and slaves being first ordered to withdraw." — Suetonius, Claud. 22, Bohn's trans. Did the deities share patrician contempt for workmen and slaves ? §iv.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 41-51. 227 Keverence for omens was part of the reactionary creed, but in A. D. 45 an eclipse of the sun was about to hap- pen, unfortunately for them, on the emperor's birthday. This compelled a public explanation that such events, in- stead of being ominous, were merely due to the regular motion of the moon.128 In A. D. 49 augury, after an extinction of twenty-five years, was for a time restored.129 In the same year Seneca was recalled. He had been banished to Corsica on the accession of Claudius, because, doubtless, of his lukewarm patricianism, though a different reason was assigned. His recall has been attributed to Agrippina, the ambitious sister of Caligula, who in this year married her uncle, the emperor. A surmise deserves considera- tion, whether it may not have been due to public indig- nation at wholesale murder, misrule, and the effort to force absurdities on the community as entitled to relig- ious respect. The party in power may have conceded to popular feeling the appointment of Seneca and Burrhus as instructors of their future prince,130 that they might thus retain their authority under Claudius with less like- lihood of overthrow. Whether Seneca made unworthy concessions is also a point for consideration.131 Some of his utterances touch- 125 Dio Cass. 60, 26. 129 Tacitus, An. 12, 23. 130 « Agrippina . . . obtained for Annseus Seneca a reversal of his exile, and with it the pretorship ; favors which she supposed would prove acceptable to the public. . . . She also wished that the youthful mind of her son Domitius [Nero] should be trained up to manhood under such a preceptor." — Tacitus, An. 12, 8, Bonn's trans. Compare An. 13, 2-4, where Seneca and Burrhus are mentioned as rectores, guardians, or directors of the emperor's youth. 131 "It is a great solace of my miseries to notice his [the emperor's] world-wide mercy. . . . I do not fear lest it should overlook me alone. He, however, knows best the time when to relieve each. I will make every effort that he may not blush on extending it to me." — Seneca, Ad Polyb. Consoled. 22, 3. " The object of the address to Polybius was to have his sentence of exile recalled, even at the cost of his character." — Smith, Bid. of Biog. Vol. 3, p. 778, col. 2, art. Seneca. On this treatise a French writer of the last century remarks : " At first [when published] 228 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. ing persons or things politically distasteful to patricians indicate the influences which surrounded him.132 § v. A. D. 52 - 54 Expulsion of the Jews. Claudius as Belial. The aristocracy, on the accession of Claudius, had avoided expelling the Jews, lest they should embarrass the position of their co-conspirator, Herod. He was now dead, and the events of A. D. 52 afforded the desired pre- text for such expulsion. Tacitus, in concluding his narrative of events at Rome for the year 51, mentions repeated earthquakes, and con- nects their mention with that of a failure of crops and a consequent scarcity of provisions,133 which was regarded every one was scandalized. Next a wish was expressed that the treatise might not be Seneca's. Subsequently a doubt was expressed whether it were his. Only one step remained, namely, to allege that it was not his." — Diderot, quoted in Le Maire's edition of Seneca, Opp. Philos., Vol. 2, p. 238. Diderot strives to prove that Seneca did not write the work, but his arguments are unsatisfactory. It is indeed inconsistent with the Ludus in Mortem Claudii, but the latter work is not Seneca's. It is in- consistent with truth and self-respect. Seneca must have sacrificed some- what of both. It is written by an exile under Claudius ; is addressed to one whom we know that Seneca addressed ; is written in Seneca's style, and its criticism on Caligula (c. 36) resembles the tone of Seneca else- where. His political friends, anxious for his return and co-operation, may have urged him to make concessions. 132 "Since, however, the [Sabbath] usage of that most villanous race, sceleratissimce gentis, has so gained strength that it pervades all lands, the conquered have given laws to the conquerors." — Seneca, quoted by Augustine, De Civitate Dei, 6, 11. " Let us prohibit any one from lighting candles on Sabbaths." — Seneca, Epist. 95, 47. 133 " Many prodigies happened in that year. Birds of evil omen perched on the Capitol : houses were thrown down by repeated earthquakes, and, through fear of more extended ruin, every infirm person was trampled down by the frightened multitude. Deficiency of provisions, and consequent famine, were deemed an omen, prodigium. Nor were complaints made only in secret ; but while Claudius was deciding legal cases [the grnm biers] pressed around him with tumultuous clamor, and after having driven him to the extremity of the Forum, were violently pushing against him, until, §V.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 52-51 229 as ominous, though he does not tell us what it was sup- posed to portend. The scarcity prevailed in the winter, apparently, of 51-52. Possibly that historian may — to avoid repetition, or for some other motive — have con- cluded in 51 what extended into 52, anticipating some- what, as he has elsewhere done.134 I shall assume that these earthquakes — whether they did or did not extend into the latter year — occurred in the winter of 51 - 52, since that agrees best with such other data as we can reliably connect therewith.135 If the reader deems the preceding summer, or winter, more probable, he must then place the subsequent train of events so much earlier. The earthquakes and widespread famine must have caused, or brought to its culmination, a Messianic excite- ment ; and Claudius, according to Suetonius, " expelled from Kome the Jews, who, under the impulse of Chris- tianity, were keeping up a constant disturbance." 136 The in a circle of soldiers, he broke through the angry [surrounders]. It is certain that not more than fifteen days' food remained for the city. By great benignity of the gods and mildness (modestia) of the winter, the ex- tremity was done away with. " — Tacitus, Annals, 12, 43. 134 Tacitus (Annals, 15, 22) puts into the year A. D. 62 an earthquake, which Seneca {Nat. Quccst. 6, 1, 2), writing within two years, or perhaps within one, a|ter its occurrence, places on the 5th of Februarj7', A. d. 63. 135 The death of Philip, connected, as we shall soon see, with the excite- ment consequent on these earthquakes, is placed by distinct evidence in A. d. 52 (Claudii, 12). Paul, after staying eighteen months at Corinth (Acts 18, 11), sailed thence to Syria (Acts, 18, 18), which he would hardly have attempted in early winter. The feast which he wished to attend (Acts 18, 21) was probabty a passover, and if so his departure from Corinth must have been in February or March ; his arrival there eighteen months earlier must have been in August or September, and his arrival in Mace- donia must have been in the early part of that year or the close of the preceding. 136 " Judceos impulsore Chresfo assidue tumultuantcs, Roma expulit." — Sueton. Claudius, 25. The omission by Tacitus to mention this ex- pulsion is noteworthy. The use of the word "Christ" for "Christianity" is common enough, as in Paul's letter to the Philippians, 1, 15. The spell- ing of Chrestus, instead of Christus, accords with a common pronuncia- tion of the word among the heathens. Tertullian, in his Apology, 3, 230 JUDAISM AT BOME. [CH. VIU. heathens could have no motive for exculpating Jews at the expense of Christians. Hence the allegation, that remarks that the word " Christian as regards its meaning is derived from anointing, and even when it is wrongly pronounced by you 'Chrestian,' — for your acquaintance with the name is not thorough, — it would still he composed from [a word which means] suavity or benignity." Lac- tantius moreover, in his Divine Institutes, Book 4, ch. 7, says " that the meaning of this name [Christum] needs to be explained on account of an error of ignorant men who are accustomed to utter it with the change of one letter, ' Chrestum.' " Owing to the fact that in Greek the word Christ or Christian would, by the change of a single letter, mean good, we find several passages in Christian writers which seem to play on the similarity of these words. Thus in Clement of Alexandria we read, Strom. 2, 18 ; Opp. 1, p. 438 : " Believers on Christ are, and are called, good, xPrl(yT0'i- The change of one letter would make it read are, and are called, Christians." The same writer in his Pcedag. 1, 44 ; Opp. 1, p. 124, quoting the passage 1 Peter 2, 3 : "If ye have tasted that the Lord is good," makes it by altering one letter read, "If ye have tasted that Christ is the Lord," 6n Xpiarbs 6 Kvpcos. And again in Strom. 5, 67 ; Opp. 2, p. 6S5, he quotes from Psalm 34, 8 (Septuagint, 33, 9) the same sentiment with the same alter- ation : " Taste and see that Christ is the Lord." Again, Protrept. § 123 ; Opp 1, p. 95, he says : " Good xPVa"r^^s the whole life of men who have known Christ, xPL(TT^u 5 and with a slight additional alteration in the Pro- trept. § 87 ; Opp. 1, p. 72, he says : " Taste and see that Christ is divine." In this latter instance he substitutes for the word Kupios, Lord, the word Geos, God, which means also divine. Justin Martyr, in his Apology, 1, 4, tells the Emperor, " so far as concerns the name alleged against us, we are xp^crToraroi, very good." And again, Apology, 1,4, "We are accused of being xPl, what is good." Theophilus probably intended the same play on the ordinary pronunciation of this word when he says 1, l (Justin. Opp. p. 338), "I confess that I am a Christian . . . who hopes to be ei'x/57?crTos serviceable to (or a good Christian before) God." There is, moreover, still extant a dialogue entitled Philopatris, written by some heathen in the fourth century, and erroneously ascribed to the Lucian, who lived two centuries earlier. In this dialogue Christianity is defended by Triephon in such a manner as might be expected from a heathen who wished to ridicule it. Critias asks him, " Are the affairs of the Scythians also registered in heaven?" Triephon answers, "All. For Christ [xpt] p. 224, where a copy of the representation is given. 18 The lunar year contained sometimes twelve and sometimes thirteen months. Allowing in Daniel's time, by a moderate inaccuracy, thirty days to a month, there would in three and a half years be either 1,260 or 1,290 days, accordingly as an intercalary month was or was not in- cluded in the reckoning. Forty-two months, or one time, two times, and half a time, or three days and a half, seem to be different expres- sions for three years and a half. Compare Rev. 11, 2, 3, 9, 11 ; 12, G, 14 ; 13, 5; and Daniel 7, 25; 12, 7, 11. The time during which, under Antiochus Epiphanes, the temple sacrifice was intermitted, was regarded as three and a half years ; see Daniel 12, 11. 262 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. IX. that he had been banished or had fled thither. Spirit- ually he found himself in the " Day of the Lord."19 The tenor of the book requires us to understand by this the day of the Lord's coming.20 A voice behind him, pow- erful as a trumpet, directs him to write certain admo- nitions to the seven churches. Turning, he sees Jesus, who specifies what he should, write to each. These spe- cifications (cc. 2, 3) afford ground for probable conjecture on some historical points.21 19 Rev. 1, 10. 20 Origen uses the same term in the sense above given. He says: " The whole house of Israel shall be raised in the great KvptaKrj, Day of the Lord, death having been conquered." — Origen, in Joan. 10, -20; OPP' *> P* 197, B, edit, de la Rue; 1, p. 345, edit. Lommatzsch. 21 Laodicea is told (Rev. 3, 14-18) that she thinks herself rich, but is in reality poor. Tacitus says {An. 14, 27), that Laodicea, when thrown down by an earthquake in the year 60, regained its position without Roman aid, by its own resources. Paul speaks (Coloss. 2, 1) of Laodicea as one of the places where he had not been. Wealthy and conservative Judaism may have rendered it an unpromising field for him, and may, when the Apocalypse was written, have seemed to its author lukewarm or worldly. With him true Judaism and Christianity were synony- mous. Near Laodicea, on the same stream, was Hierapolis, where Philip in the year 52 had been martyred by Jews and heathens conjointly. So far as Paul's journeys are recorded, it also had not been visited by him. It is not enumerated among the seven [chief?] churches by the author of the Apocalypse, and although there were some Christians there (Coloss. 4, 13) when Paul wrote, between A. d. 62 and 64, to the Colossians, ye* the field had not probably been a fruitful one. The Nicolaitans at Ephesus — named, possibly, after some prominent member — may have been the society of Gentiles, with an admixture of liberal Jews, which Paul founded there (Acts 19, 9, 10). They had probably discarded the Sabbath (see p. 240), and from Paul's remark to Timothy (2 Tim. 1, 15), cited on pp. 257, 258 (compare Acts 21, 27), — a remark written after a renewed effort at Ephesus (1 Tim. 1, "»; 3, 14), — it is probable enough that his society shared the disfavor into which he had himself fallen. Whether they fraternized in a culpable manner with the heathens, or whether they merely appeared culpable in the eyes of their Jewish brethren, may be a question. The Christians at Pergamus are represented as dwelling in the seat of Satan, that is, of heathenism, and § v.] APOCALYPSE. 26 o After the admonitions, John represents himself as sum- moned to heaven (ch. 4), and that he spiritually went there.22 At the right hand of the Supreme Being was a book (ch. 5), the book, as it would seem, of the Divine purposes. No one in heaven, nor on the earth, nor un- der the earth, save Jesus, proved worthy to open this book.23 By a book we must understand as in ancient times a scroll. This one would seem already full, for it is written not only on the inner side, as usual, but also on the outer. It is a sealed book until Jesus opens it. Jewish partiality for the number seven appears in the list of seals which fasten it. In chapter 6, seal after seal is broken, and with each consecutive seal an additional portion of the book is unfolded, giving further insight into God's purposes. The breaking of the first four seals brings to view a white horse, emblematic of triumph to the Son of Man ; a red, a black, and a pale horse, emblematic of war, famine, and some of them as eating idol sacrifices. In this respect they are said to resemble the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2, 13-15). Probably if a Christian had seated himself at the table of his yet heathen brother, sister, or friend, knowing that idol meat stood thereon, he would have been blamed. Paul's directions for a similar state of things (1 Cor. 8, 4-13; 10, 19-3-2) imply narrowness on one side and thoughtless, or else unconscientious, laxity on the other. The excitement of the years 64 - 70 was likely to reproduce or exaggerate either tendency. The Christians at Smyrna seem to have been poor (Rev. 2, 9), and the non-Christian Jews of that place were probably on good terms with, or else sought the favor of, heathens, for they are said to belong to " Satan's synagogue." The allusion to but a single martyr (Rev. 2, 13) in the seven churches renders it probable that estrangement and embitterment had not in Asia Minor produced much bloodshed. 22 The surroundings and attendance on the Supreme Being, as described in ch. 4, are borrowed from Ezekiel 1, 5-24 ; Isaiah 6, 2, 3; Exodus 28, 17-20. The attendant creatures are so provided with ej^es in every direc- tion — and in Ezekiel with wheels — that they need not even turn around before starting on their errands ; see Ezekiel 1, 12. 28 Jesus is designated by two opposite figures, as "the lamb that was slaughtered" (5, 6) and as "the lion of the tribe of Judah" (5, s). 264 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. IX. pestilence, or destruction generally, for his enemies.24 The fifth seal displays the martyrs clamorous for vengeance, who are told to wait yet a little. The sixth unfolds con- vulsions of nature before which mortals hide themselves in terror, and when — after security provided (ch. 7) for the Jewish saints25 — the seventh seal is opened (ch. 8) the inhabitants of heaven stand silent, awe-struck appar- ently, for half an hour. After this, either as a means of carrying out the un- expressed horrors unveiled by breaking the seventh seal, or else independently of it, seven angels consecutively blow a trumpet. The plagues which follow these blasts are borrowed from the Old Testament, being mainly, though not wholly, those recorded as inflicted on the Egyptians.26 There is, however, a noteworthy difference 24 The emblematic import of each horse is sufficiently explained in the context of its appearance. The price of grain during the famine (ch. 6, 6) is copied from 2 Kings 7, 1, but with a seeming inadvertence. The Book of Kings represents Elisha as predicting to the beleaguered and famished city, where a woman had even eaten her child, the plenty which actually came when the invaders fled from their well-filled camp. The direc- tion that no injury be done to wine or oil may have been owing to the prominent use of these articles, at least by the poorer classes, in temple offerings. 25 Those who are guarded by a seal against harm are twelve thousand from each of the twelve original tribes of Israel. 26 The hail and fire (that is, lightning) in ch. 8, 7; 16, 21, is borrowed from Exodus 9, 23. The changing of the sea into blood, ch. 8, 8 ; 16, 3, 4, is taken from Exodus 7, 20, 21. The darkening of sun, moon, and stars, ch. 8, 12 ; 16, 10, is based on Exodus 10, 22. The bitter waters, ch. 8, 11, are suggested by Exodus 15, 23-36. The account of locusts, ch. 9, 3-12, though having a basis in Exodus 10, 12-15, is filled out apparently from Joel, ch. 2. The ulcers, ch. 16, 2, are taken from Exo- dus 9, 10, 11. In ch. 9, 14-17, armies, of Parthians doubtless and Medes, are let loose at the Euphrates, to scourge the persecuting Jews; and in ch. 16, 12, where heathen opposition is dealt with, an angel dries up the river so as to facilitate a passage for these "kings from the East." They had proved so troublesome as to suggest themselves readily as a scourge either for the Jews of Syria and Asia Minor, or for the Romans who had been unable to conquer them. § v.] APOCALYPSE. 265 between their reproduction in this, and in the latter, por- tion of the book. Here the author is dealing with Jewish opposition. All the plagues fall, therefore, in a mitigated form. Only a third of the sun, moon, and stars is dark- ened, only a third of the sea becomes blood, only a third of the grass and trees are destroyed, and only a third of the springs become bitter. When we come to the over- throw of heathen opposition, we shall find that heathens get the plagues without mitigation. It is the sea, not merely a third of it, which is changed into blood, and so with the remaining inflictions. In the present portion a tenth merely of Jerusalem falls clown (ch. 11, 13), and the rest is converted. But in dealing with heathenism an angel casts a millstone into the sea (ch. 18, 21), exclaim- ing, Babylon (the title given by the book to Rome) shall go down like that, and the sound of a harper shall not be heard in her again. Before concluding the suppression of Jewish opposition and prior to the seventh trumpet, John takes from the angel, who has just asseverated the absence of any further delay, a small book, an account perhaps of what was about to transpire. By direction he eats it, and finds, as the angel had foretold to him, that, though sweet to the taste, it was bitter of digestion. The suppression of Jewish opposition being effected, the writer proceeds, in chapter 12, to that of heathenism. The true people of God, that is, the faithful portion of the Jewish nation, is represented, according to a^ figure borrowed from the Old Testament, as a woman.27 She gives birth to the Messiah. Heathenism, identified with Satan, is represented as a serpent eager to devour the child. The latter is caught up to God, and the woman seeks refuge in the wilderness. The serpent pours after 27 In Isaiah, 50, 1, the former Jewish people is represented as the wife of Jehovah whom he had dismissed because of her transgressions. In Ezekiel, ch. 16, God is further represented as having brought her up from infancy and married her. The details of the figure there given imply utter coarseness and grossness in any community to whom they can have been addressed. 266 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. IX. her floods of water, a common Jewish figure for afflictions, which the earth in her behalf drinks up. The serpent in his rage makes war against the remain- der of her children. His chief agent in this is a beast (ch. 13), the Roman power. The rising of the beast from the sea, and some of the language concerning it, is bor- rowed from Daniel.28 This first-portrayed beast (ch. 13, 1 - 10) is the Roman power. One of its heads, Nero, is rep- resented as slaughtered, but the deadly wound is healed.29 It came into Asia from across the sea. A second beast ap- pears rising from the land (ch. 13, 11) ; that is, originating among themselves. It is portrayed as a subordinate agent of Rome's power, and probably represents Gentile Chris- tianity, by which must be understood not merely Paul's teaching, but that of others with whom he might have had but limited or no sympathy. To an ultra-Jewish Christian this Gentile Christianity seemed but another form of heathenism.30 Its inculcation of obedience to Rome (ch. 13, 12) did not, in a season of war, diminish the odium against it. Some Gentile Christians may have -vaunted, rather than appreciated, Paul's miracles (Acts I9,n-17), and the writer represents that this second beast "deceives the inhabitants of the land through the 28 Daniel 7, 2-27. 29 See Appendix, Note F. 30 " This second beast had the horns of a lamb and the talk of a ser- pent " ; that is, it put on the guise of monotheism, but its teaching was heathenish. It reappears (ch. 16, 13 ; 19, 20 ; 20, 10) as the false prophet, or teacher. This view of Gentile Christianity by the writer should be compared with two paragraphs of Ch. VIII. on pp. 254, 255. The second beast is by some leading commentators deemed an emblem of Rome's superstition. But Rome's superstition did not originate in Asia. Its professions, or outer appearance, would, in the eyes of a Jew- ish Christian, have been the opposite of lamb-like or innocent. To it he would not have applied in any sense the term "prophet," since there was no such thing as public teaching, or teachers, in the name of the heathen religion ; nor in that age do Jews, or Christians, seem to have applied the term, save to a professed teacher- of monotheism. Miracles, moreover, were not performed in the name of the heathen religion. § v.] APOCALYPSE. 267 miracles which it is permitted to perform in the presence of the [first] beast," that is, in the presence of heathenism. The chief beast is designated by a number, of which a probable explanation is one of those given in the note.31 A subsequent passage, where this beast is mentioned conjointly with the woman in purple and scarlet, or the city of Eome,32 leaves no doubt that it designates the Latin power.33 31 The shorter of the annexed explana- tions is mentioned already in the second century by Irenseus, Cont. Hccres. 5, 30, 5. The longer of the two originally appeared, so far as I know, in the Westminster Re- view for October, 1861, Vol. 76, p. 261, Am. edit. The shorter means " Latin"; the longer means "The Latin kingdom." The num- bers affixed to each letter are those for which they are commonly used in Greek enumeration. It will be noticed that in the longer explanation the word "Latin" is spelled without an e. The statement (ch. 13, IS) that the num- ber is that of a man militates against the second explanation. A 30 'H 8 a 1 T 300 /3 2 e 5 a 1 I 10 a 200 V 50 t 10 0 70 \ 30 s 200 € 5 666 t I 10 a 1 A 30 a 1 T 300 I 10 V 50 V 8 6(i6 32 The connection of ideas which prompted the presentation of Home as an impure woman (ch. 17, 1-5; 18, 3) needs a word of explanation. The Jewish nation being deemed, as already mentioned, the wife of Jehovah, any deviation on its part into idolatry was treated as a wife's infidelity. Hence, idolatry was denominated impurity, and Rome, the support of idolatry, was depicted as mistress of impurities. Her clothing of purple and scarlet was probably suggested by the imperial costume. 83 A detailed explanation is given in ch. 17, 7-18. Verse 18 tells us that the woman — whose forehead bore, according to verse 5, a name of secret import, "Babylon" — is "that great city which hath rule over the kings of the earth." The seven heads of the beast are the seven hills on which she sits, and also the seven kings, one of whom is clearly enough depicted as Nero. 268 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. IX. Fearful denunciations are uttered against any one who shall accept a mark of fidelity to the beast, however necessary to worldly advancement (ch. 14, 9- n), and the punishments denounced are treated (verse 12) as cause for endurance on the part of the consecrated. Aside from other calamities, which were to destroy Borne, the kings whom she had subjugated are repre- sented in one passage as eager for her destruction,34 though in another they are represented as weeping over her.35 In chapter 18, an angel dilates upon the thoroughness of her destruction, dwells upon the causes of it, and therewith, in verse 6, calls upon God's true people to take vengeance upon her. Chapter 19 opens with a song of praise in heaven to God, because he has destroyed Home and avenged to the uttermost the blood of his bondsmen. After the triumph over Rome comes the millennium. The beast and false prophet are thrown into a lake of fire.36 Satan is bound for a thousand years.37 The mar- tyrs, alone apparently, are brought to life and reign with Christ during this period.38 At the end of it Satan is loosed for a time, only to be again overcome, and this time he also is thrown into the lake of fire to keep com- pany with the beast and false prophet.39 The remainder of mankind are then brought to life and judged.40 Then the New Jerusalem, which is to become the wife of the Lamb, makes her appearance, adorned as a bride for her husband, and a particular description is given of her at- tractions.41 The denunciations, with which the book closes, against 34 Rev. 17, 12, 16, 17. 38 Ch. 20, 4, 5. 85 Ch. 18, 9. 89 Ch. 20, 10. 86 Ch. 19, 20. 40 Ch. 20, 5, 13. 87 Ch. 20, 2, 3. 41 Ch. 21, 9-27; compare ch. 19, 7-9. In one of these passages the time for the marriage is represented, before the millennium, as having come. In the other it is represented as taking place after the millennium. Nothing in the context implies that the writer noticed or attempted to solve the apparent discrepance. § v.] APOCALYPSE. 269 any one who should add to, or take away from, its state- ments, were not so peculiar in that age as they seem now.42 The book, though often treated as a revelation made by Jesus, presents to the student, whether of opinions, or of Christianity, serious and painful contrasts to the Master's teaching in the Gospels. Those records represent Jesus as inculcating forgiveness to the uttermost, as weeping over the city which would soon put him to death, and as dying with a prayer of forgiveness for his murderers. The 42 Among fragments of Irenseus is the following: "I adjure you, copyist of this book, by the Lord Jesus Christ and by that glorious coming of his, in which he shall come to judge the living and the dead, that you compare your copy and carefully correct it by this exemplar whence you transcribe; and that you likewise transcribe this adjuration and place it in your copy." — Irenseus, Opp. 1, p. 821, edit. Stieren, or p. 339, edit. Massuet. Eusebius adopts the above and prefixes it to his Chronicon; see Jerome's translation thereof in his Works, Vol. 8, col. 9, 10, edit. Vallarsius. He also, in his Ecclesiastical History, 5, 20, copies and commends it. The following is from Rufinus, a writer at the close of the fourth century: "I, in the presence of God the Father, and of the Son and Spirit, invoke every one who shall transcribe or read these books, and I cite him by the belief of a future kingdom, by the sacrament (?) of res- urrection from the dead, by that eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels ; that, as he would not possess for an eternal inher- itance that place where is screaming and gnashing of teeth and where their fire is not extinguished and their worm dieth not, he shall neither take away, nor insert, nor change, but shall compare with the exemplars, from which he wrote, and shall correct literally and shall separate [the words] ; and that he shall not use an unamended manuscript nor one in which the words are not separated, lest difficulty of apprehension, if the manuscript be not separated [into words], should occasion greater obscu- rity to readers." — Prologue of Rufinus to the Be Principiis of Origen, in Origen's works, Vol. 21, pp. 13, 14, edit. Lommatzsch, or Vol. 1, p. 46, edit, de la Rue. The last caution was owing to the fact that many manuscripts were written without separation of words, so that they presented a mere mass of consecutive letters. Compare also, in Note D of the Appendix, the concluding extract from the Book of Enoch. 270 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CII. X. present work inculcates a spirit of revenge, not merely in a casual passage, but repeatedly,43 and without its force being broken by a lesson of forgiveness or forbearance, however it may be palliated by Roman crime. Jesus, according to the Gospels, foretold the overthrow of Jerusalem, but neither her subsequent splendor nor Rome's destruction. This book presents an opposite an- ticipation in each respect. Jesus in the Gospels teaches a future when neither at Gerizim nor in Jerusalem should men worship.44 This book represents the true worshippers as congregated in Jerusalem, while the vile and worthless dwell outside.45 CHAPTER X. CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 70 - 138. § I. A. D. 70 - 81. The Reign of Vespasian a Coalition. That of Titus favors Reaction. The reign of Vespasian was a coalition between him- self as leader of the popular party and Mucianus as leader of the moderate patricians. Mucianus had been consul 43 The enduring martyr is to rule the Gentiles with a rod of iron (ch. 2, 26, 27) ; Jesus is represented as about to rule them in the same way (12, 5; 19,15); the torments of the damned are ground for endur- ance of the saints (14, 12) ; the destruction of heathens is such that for sixteen hundred furlongs, or two hundred miles, their blood rises to the bridles of the horses (14, 20) ; the people of God are urged to repay upon Rome her injuries towards them, and to requite her twice twofold (18, 0), and are in the next verse told to punish her for her self-complacency. Even the heavens, the apostles, and the prophets are called upon to re- joice over her punishment. 44 Gospel of John 4, 21. 45 Rev. 22, 3, 4, 15. §i.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 70-81. 271 in A. D. 52. He and the moderate patricians cannot have sympathized with the high-handed course of their asso- ciates, and his voluntary exile was doubtless the result of non-assent to ultra-patricianism.1 He and Vespasian had, by political position, been at variance. They, however, became reconciled, and united their forces. Titus, who seems to have been on good terms with patricians and to have been partly under their influence, was the envoy, if not the originator, of reconcil- iation between his father and Mucianus.2 What the terms of agreement may have been, we do not know ; but all such agreements imply concession by one or both parties, and the reign of Vespasian contained one or two acts which must by his own followers have been deemed a surrender of popular to patrician ideas.3 A ques- tion may be how far this was due to Mucianus and how far to the semi-patricianism of Titus, who is said to have acted as his father's colleague.4 Any claim of his to a 1 "Suspecting the displeasure of Claudius, he [Mucianus] retired into Asia, and there lived in obscurity, as little removed from the condition of an exile, as he was afterwards from that of a sovereign." — Tacitus, Hist. 1, 10, Bohn's trans. 2 " Amongst the governors of provinces, Licinius Mucianus, dropping the grudge arising from a jealousy of which he had hitherto made no secret, promised to join him with the Syrian army." — Suetonius, Vcspas. 6, Bohn's trans. "Vespasian in Judaea, and Mucianus in Syria, . . . beheld each other, for some time, with the jealousy of rivals. . . . Mutual friends made the first advances towards a reconciliation ; after- wards Titus formed the great bond of union between them." — Tacitus, Hist. 2, 5, Bohn's trans. 3 The expulsion of Stoics, probably in A. d. 71, mentioned in Ch. III. note 45, is attributed by its narrator to Mucianus. The death of Helvid- ius Priscus (Sueton. Vespas. 15) must have been conceded, rather than acceptable, to Vespasian, though Helvidius was (Dio Cass. 66, 12), equally as his father-in-law, Thrasea Partus, an incarnation of patricianism. The patrician wing of the coalition, constantly in collision with him in the Senate, may have been anxious to get rid of him. 4 "From that time [when he arrived in Italy] he constantly acted as colleague with his father, and, indeed, as regent of the empire." — Sue- ton. Titus, 6, Bohn's trans. 272 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. share of authority, as against his father, was sure to be magnified by reactionaries who had previously, for their own selfish purposes, counselled him to revolt against his parent.5 He and Berenice, sister of the younger Herod Agrippa, had become mutually attached. His reluctant dismissal of her may have been due either to fear in the patrician wing of the coalition, lest association with Ju- daism might afford a handle to its enemies, or else to an influence of outside patricians upon Titus. The elo- quence of Quintilian, in an assembly over which Berenice presided, had proved insufficient to remove political ob- stacles.6 The beating of one Stoic (or Cynic) and decap- itation of another may have found Titus in a mood to sympathize with it.7 6 "The soldiers . . . saluted him by the title of Emperor; and upon his quitting the province soon afterwards, would needs have detained him, earnestly begging him, and that not without threats, • either to stay, or take them all with him.' This occurrence gave rise to the suspicion of his being engaged in a design to rebel against his father, and claim for himself the government of the East; and the suspicion increased, when, on his way to Alexandria, he wore a diadem at the consecration of the ox Apis at Memphis. . . . Making, therefore, what haste he could into Italy. . . . Presenting himself unexpectedly to his father, he said, by way of contradicting the strange reports raised concerning him, ' I am come, father, I am come.' " — Sueton. Titus, 5, Bonn's trans. The be- havior of the soldiers was not improbably prompted by patrician officers, or some action by officers may have been attributed to the soldiery. 6 ' ' Some have been judges in their own cases. For I find in the books of 'Observations,' issued by Septimius, that Cicero was present [as ad- vocate] in such a cause, and I plead the cause of Queen Berenice before herself." — Quintilian, 4, 1, 18, 19. " Bereniccn statim ab urbe dimisit invitus invitam. He immediately, with mutual reluctance, dismissed Berenice from the city." — Sueton. Titus, 7. This must mean after the last effort to conciliate public opinion had proved abortive. Suetonius had previously mentioned the common report that he had promised to marry her. Berenice, according to Dio Cass. 66, 15, "dwelt in the palace, . . . expected to marry him [Titus], and conducted herself as already his wife, insomuch that he, having discovered the dissatisfaction of the Romans at these things, sent her away." 7 After expulsion of the Stoics some of the more dogged and cynical §i.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 70-81. 273 In the outset of the present period the omission of a custom has been deemed worthy of record by Dio Cas- sius, and this omission bears indirect testimony to the spread of Judaism. It was customary at Rome, if a gen- eral conquered Britain, or Germany, or Parthia, or some other country, to call him the British, the German, the Parthian, or by the name of the conquered country, what- ever that might be. But, though Vespasian and Titus had won their laurels in Judaea, neither was called Jitdaicus, the Jewish.8 To have borne such a title would probably have conveyed the impression that they were converts to Judaism rather than its conquerors. Of no other country save Judaea would this have held true. Vespasian's encouragement of learning9 may have been due to his position as leader of the popular party, rather than to personal appreciation of its merits. If he kept a monthly fast, this may have been due to some monothe- istic custom of his wife Csenis.10 His avoidance of for- among them had, to use Dio's expression, "somehow crept [back] into the city." Of these, "Diogenes first entered the theatre full of men, and venting many calumnies against them [Titus and Berenice] re- ceived a beating therefor. After him, Heras, expecting nothing worse, shouted out currishly many improprieties, and, because of it, had his head taken ofT." — Dio Cass. 66, 15. If the analogy between Jewish and Stoic views were one of the causes why these men had been expelled, they probably found fault with toleration of Judaism in the palace, whilst they had been punished for sharing some of its views. 8 "Both took the title of emperor, but neither received the title of Jewish." —Dio Cass. 66, 7. 9 "He was a great encourager of learning and the liberal arts. He first granted to the Latin and Greek professors of rhetoric the yearly stipend of a hundred thousand sesterces each, out of the exchequer. He also bought the freedom of superior poets and artists, and gave a noble gratuity to the restorer of the Coan of Venus, and to another artist who repaired the Colossus. Some one offering to convey some immense col- umns into the Capitol, at a small expense, by a mechanical contrivance, he rewarded him very handsomely for his invention, but would not accept his service, saying, ■ Suffer me to find maintenance for the poor people.' ' — Sueton. Vespas. 18, Bohn's trans. 1° "He enjoyed a good state of health, though he used no other means 12* R 274 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. eign war agreed with popular rather than with patrician ideas.11 The addition or substitution of new members in the Senate12 must have been grateful to both wings of the coalition. The new members cannot have been rad- icals, and were not long in adopting some peculiarities of the privileged class. When the death of Vespasian left Titus sole ruler, a reaction in favor of patricianism must soon have become strong. How far Titus sympathized with it and how far he merely yielded to it may be questions. He had in boyhood been in the family of Claudius,13 possibly as a hostage, since the aristocracy might mistrust his father's popular tendencies. The influences which there sur- rounded him may have swayed his character, or thrown him into association with patricianism. In his reign we find a vast amphitheatre finished for the demoralizing public games. We also find murder of the common peo- ple, but impunity for senators.14 The latter was due to himself, and the former must at least have received no vigorous repression at his hands. An eruption of Vesuvius during his reign made even reactionaries believe that the world was coming to an end.15 Subsequently to this eruption a large fire oc- to preserve it than repeated friction, . . . besides fasting one day in every month." — Sueton. Vcspcts. 20, Bohn's trans. Csenis, his wife, was a freedwoman of Antonia, concerning whom see Appendix, Note G, foot- note 56. 11 Vespasian "gave no aid to the Parthians when engaged in some war and asking his alliance. He said that it was not proper for him to inter- meddle with other people's business." — Dio Cass. 66, 15. Compare Ch. V. § n. 12 Tac. An. 3, 55, quoted in Ch. V. note 47. 13 Sueton. Titus, 2. 14 "The divine Titus with his great mind made provision for our security and revenge, ... on which account we [senators] made him a god." — Pliny, Pancgyr. 35. Yet compare Sueton. Titus, 9; Dio Cass. 66, 19, who may perhaps have considered execution of common people as not worth mention. The latter, however, says (Ibid.), that Titus "did not attend to charges of unbelief." 16 "Many and enormous men, exceeding human stature, such as the §11.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 81-96. 275 curred at Rome and also a pestilence.16 One means adopted for checking the latter ignored modern sanitary regulations, and may have increased the pestilence by communicating to public places the odors of a slaughter- house. §11. A. D. 81-96. JDomitian. Expulsion of Monotheism. Domitian, besides being an adept in some physical ex- ercises,17 was a man of more ability and scholarship than giants are depicted, became visible, at one time on the mountain, at an- other in the circumjacent country, and in the cities, wandering about day and night on the earth and traversing the air. . . . Then there was much fire and frightful smoke, so that the whole air was darkened and the whole sun hidden as in an eclipse. Night took the place of day and darkness of light. Some thought the giants had risen again, for many figures of them were visible through the smoke, and, besides this, a sound of trumpets was heard. Others again thought that the world was being reduced to chaos, or destroyed by fire. . . . The quantity of ashes was such that part of it was carried to Africa, Syria, and Egypt. It entered Rome also and filled the air over it and darkened the sun. There was for many days there no little fear among men, since they did not know and could not conjecture what had happened. They thought that all things above and below had been upset, that the sun had been extin- guished against the earth, and that the earth had gone up to heaven." — Dio Cass. 66, 22, 23. The younger Pliny, who was nearer the scene of convulsion, tells us that he believed himself and the rest of the world to be perishing together, me cum omnibus, omnia mecum perire. — Pliny, Jun., Epist. 6, 20, 17. 16 "There happened in his reign some dreadful accidents; an eruption of Mount Vesuvius, in Campania, and a fire in Rome, which continued during three days and three nights ; besides a plague, such as was scarcely ever known before. . . . For the relief of the people during the plague, he employed, in the way of sacrifices and remedies, all means both divine and human."— Suetonius, Titus, 8, Bonn's trans, altered. "The ashes [from Vesuvius] caused at the time no serious evil, but eventually brought upon them [the Romans] a dreadful pestilential disease. In the following year a superterrestrial fire ravaged a large part of Rome. ... It consumed the Octavian buildings with the books [that is, public libraries], the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, and the temples in that vicinity." — Dio Cass. 66, 23, 24. 17 " Many persons have seen him often kill a hundred wild animals, of 276 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. either his father or brother. His anti-patrician tenden- cies may have inclined or compelled him to take no part in their administrations. When the government devolved on him, he gave up scholarly pursuits for his new duties, devoting himself to these latter with laborious attention and thoughtfulness.18 His capacity for civil administra- tion is attested by the condition of the provinces during his reign. At Koine he seems to have distinguished" between prosecutions for misdeeds and those prompted by private jealousy or greediness, encouraging the former and discouraging the latter.19 He executed the laws, even various kinds, at his Alban retreat, and fix his arrows in their heads with such dexterity, that he could, in two shots, plant them like a pair of horns in each. He would sometimes direct his arrows against the hand of a boy standing at a distance, and expanded as a mark, with such pre- cision, that they all passed between the boy's fingers without hurting him." — Sueton. Domit. 19, Bohn's trans. 18 "Care for the world has turned Germanicus Augustus [Domitian] aside from the studies which he had marked out." — Quintilian, 10, 1, 91. "In the beginning of his reign, he gave up the study of the liberal sci- ences. . . . He perused nothing but the Commentaries and Acts of Ti- berius Ceesar, . . . though he could converse with elegance." — Sueton. Domit. 20, Bohn's trans. Suetonius was no friend of Domitian. The following, therefore, cannot be attributed to partiality: " In the adminis- tration of justice he was diligent and assiduous ; and frequently sat in the forum out of course, to cancel the judgments of the court of the One Hundred, which had been procured through favor or interest. . . . He set a mark of infamy upon judges who were convicted of taking bribes, as well as upon their assessors [judicial assistants]. He likewise instigated the tribunes of the people to prosecute a corrupt aedile for extortion, and to desire the Senate to appoint judges for his trial. He likewise took such effectual care in punishing magistrates of the city, and governors of provinces, guilty of malversation, that they never were at any time more moderate or more just." — Sueton. Domit. 8, Bohn's trans. 19 Scandalous libels, published to defame persons of rank, of either sex, he suppressed, and inflicted upon their authors a mark of infamy. . . . He put a stop to false prosecutions in the exchequer [prince's treasury], "by severely punishing the prosecutors ; and this saying of his was much taken notice of : ' That- a prince who does not punish [such] prose- cutors, encourages them.' " — Sueton. Domit. 9, Bohn's trans, altered. " He exonerated all those who had been under prosecution from the §U.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 81-96. 277 when they favored his political enemies,20 and forbore to avail himself of them in some cases where they would have served his private interest.21 He can have had no be- lief in heathen deities,22 yet in a heathen community his selection of Minerva as a chief object of attention shows the literary direction which he wished to give others.23 The same tendency is manifested by comparing his action with that of Titus. The latter had devoted the furniture treasury for above five years before ; and would not suffer suits to be re- newed, unless it was done within a year, and on condition that the prose- cutor should be banished if he could not make good his cause. The secretaries of the quaestors having engaged in trade, according to custom, but contrary to the Clodian law, he pardoned them for what was past." — Sueton. Domit. 9, Bonn's trans. 20 "He occasionally cautioned the judges of the court of recovery to beware of being too ready to admit claims for freedom brought before them. . . . And to preserve pure and undefiled the reverence due to the gods, he ordered the soldiers to demolish a tomb, which one of his freed- men had erected for his son out of the stones designed for the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, and to sink in the sea the bones and relics buried in it." — Sueton. Domit. 8, Bonn's trans. " Such portions of land as had been left when it was divided amongst the veteran soldiers, he granted to the ancient possessors, as belonging to them by prescription. " — Sue- ton. Domit. 9, Bohn's trans. Domitian " gave up Claudius Pacatus, al- though a centurion, to his master, because he was proved to be a slave." — Dio Cass. 67, 13. 21 " To all about him he was generous even to profusion, and recom- mended nothing more earnestly to them than to avoid doing anything mean. He would not accept the property left him by those who had chil- dren."— Sueton. Domit. 9, Bohn's trans. 22 He openly opposed sacrifices, and, according to Suetonius, "purposed an edict forbidding the sacrifice of oxen, being prompted thereto by the recollection of Virgil's line (Georg. 2, 537), — ' Ere an impious race feasted on slaughtered bullocks.' " Sueton. Domit. 9. Contrast reactionary coin in note 124. Virgil copied probably from that part of the Erythraean verses (Append. Note A, § II.) marked B or C. 23 Domitian " especially honored Minerva. " — Dio Cass. 67, 1. Com- pare Sueton. Domit. 4. Minerva is said (Dio Cass. Sturz's edit. Vol. 6, p. 574, note 2) to be found frequently on coins of Domitian. 278 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. of his palace to ornament the temples which he rebuilt ; Domitian bent his energies to replace the libraries.24 The charge against him of licentiousness comes from those who murdered him, and is inconsistent with his known habits. His temperance at table, his mental labo- riousness and habits of silent reflection contradict the sup- position of social vices.25 Near the close of his reign the word " Lord " in address- ing him is said to have been common. This admits easy explanation.26 The term " God " may in some instances have been applied to him, and its use have been exagger- ated by hostile statements. The most natural explana- tion is that patricians endeavored to override justice by quoting, as authority, decisions of the "god" Titus or the "god" Claudius. Domitian doubtless thought him- self equal to any god of patrician manufacture,27 and if 24 " He took care to restore at a vast expense the libraries, which had been burnt down ; collecting manuscripts from all parts, and sending scribes to Alexandria either to copy or correct them." — Sueton. Domit. 20, Bohn's trans. 25 His entertainments "were soon over, for he never prolonged them after sunset, and indulged in no revel after. For till bedtime he did nothing else but walk by himself in private." — Sueton. Domit. 21, Bohn's trans. " In the beginning of his reign, he used to spend daily an hour by himself in private." — Sueton. Domit. 3, Bohn's trans. The statement by Suetonius that he occupied himself during this hour " catching flies, " is a mere absurdity. 26 In Greek the word Kvpios equally as the word Herr in German, is an appellation for the Supreme Being, or for any personal acquaintance. In the latter language the address on nearly every letter begins with the same word wherewith the Being of beings is addressed in prayer. If Domitian had gathered around him any literary Greeks, they would be apt to use, and others might copy in Latin, their accustomed form of ad- dress. 27 Domitian " thought himself the same as the gods [whom we had made ?]." — Pliny, Jan. Panegyr. 33, 4. "A certain Juventius Celsus, who was among the first conspirators against him, . . . addressing him repeatedly as master and god, by which terms others already addressed him." — Dio Cass. 67, 13. " With equal arrogance, when he dictated the form of a letter to be used by his procurators, he began it thus : ' Our §n.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 81-96. 279 popular politicians applied the term to him they probably did it in self-defence. The public games during Pomitian's reign must have endangered, if they did not destroy, life. They must also have been expensive, even to wastefulness. In this respect he cannot have been a disciple of Tiberius, nor have shared the views of monotheists. Neither can his conscience have led him to shun all appearance of assent to heathen belief. He may have been irritable, but his forbearance towards his enemies,28 until about the last year of his reign, evinces that he seldom gave way to this tendency. In A. D. 95, perhaps towards its close, Domitian came into collision with the aristocracy, who had plotted, if not openly attempted, rebellion. If we trust the accounts of patricians and their copyists, we should have to infer that at this identical moment Domitian aided his oppo- nents by driving their enemies out of Eome, that is, by expelling monotheists,29 Stoics, and other allies of the Lord and God commands so and so.'" — Sueton. Domit. 13, Bonn's trans. Political misrepresentation was so incessant and unscrupulous, that the phraseology of any such letter should not be attributed without question to Domitian. Popular politicians may, when authority of the god Claudius, or Titus, was quoted, have met it by saying : our Lord and God commands as follows. It is obvious from the language and doings of both political parties that reverence for the heathen deities had no existence. 28 The Senate repeatedly endeavored to obtain from Domitian (Dio Cass. 67, -2) his consent to an enactment which should render any execu- tion of a senator illegal, unless the Senate had agreed to it. This would have insured to their order a practical impunity. Domitian, on the other hand, shared, doubtless, a common opinion concerning the Senate (Pliny, Jun. 9, 13), as dishonestly forbearing towards delinquents in its own ranks, but towards no one else, and pronounced the lot of princes a hard one (Sueton. Domit. 21), because, even if they discovered a conspiracy, no one would believe them concerning it until after they had been mur- dered. Tacitus tells us (Agric. 45) that Agricola died [August 23, a. d. 93] while his kindred and friends were yet safe ; while Carus, the prosecutor, had as yet gained but one victory. 29 "In the same year [a. d. 95] Domitian put to death, beside many others, the consul Flavius Clemens, though his relative, and though mar- ried to Flavia Domitilla, also his relative. A charge of atheism was 280 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. popular party. This statement is so improbable that, before considering its only admissible explanation, I shall give a surmise of my own. The surmise is based upon the three following considerations : The aristocracy who expelled the Jews and monotheists in the time of Tiberius charged their own deeds upon that emperor, — a course of conduct which, as regards other matters, they repeated in the case of Caligula. Secondly, Tertullian tells us that Domitian recalled the monotheists.30 If so, the charge that he expelled them is probably a patrician falsehood. Thirdly, the statement of Dio Chrysostom, a non-patrician, then resident at Rome, attributes the death of Clemens, not to alleged rebellion against Domitian, but to his near relationship with him. This accords best with his mur- der by the aristocracy, not by Domitian.31 brought against both, under which charge many others were condemned who had strayed into Jewish customs. Some of these were executed, and others deprived of their property. But Domitilla was only banished to Pandateria." — Dio Cass. 67, 14. "His last [?] victim was Flavius Clemens, his cousin-german, a man below contempt for his want of en- ergy, whose sons, then of very tender age, he had avowedly destined for his successors. ... Nevertheless, he suddenly put him to death upon some very slight suspicion, almost before he was well out of his consul- ship."— Sueton. Domit. 15, Bonn's trans. 30 Tertullian, after mentioning Nero's persecution of the Christians, continues: "The same thing was attempted by Domitian, who as regards [the] cruelty [in his nature] was a portion of Nero ; but, in so far as he was also human, he readily put an end to his undertaking; restoring those even whom he had banished." — Tertull. Apol. 5. 31 The anti-patricianism of Dio is plain from his writings and from his friendship with Nerva. He speaks of the "most excellent Nerva," and calls him a " philanthropic emperor, who also loves me and was long ago my friend." — Dio Chrysost Orat. 45, Vol. 2, p. 202 (otherwise 513). This writer issued at Athens a discourse on the subject of his flight, which begins as follows : " When I had occasion to fly because of alleged friendship with a man, who was not a wrong-doer, and who was most nearly related to those (the Flavian family) who were then prosperous and at the head of the government, and who died on the very account, which to many, and to nearly all, made him seem fortunate, because [namely] of his belonging to their family and relationship, this being §n.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 81-96. 281 I assume that Domitian was in Eome, August 23, A. D. 93, and surmise that his latest war did not begin before A. D. 94 or 95, during much of which latter year he must have been absent from Rome. I suppose that the senato- rial party during his absence planned a rebellion, and by enforcing the Jewish tax in a most odious manner,82 com- pelled Jews, with not a few of their converts, to leave Eome ; further, that by a senatorial enactment they drove out monotheists, whether Christian or otherwise. I sup- pose that they murdered the consul Flavius Clemens, who was cousin of Domitian, and a monotheist or Christian.33 The children of Clemens disappear from history at this date, and were murdered doubtless with their parent. I charged against me as a fault that I was the man's friend and adviser. ... I considered," etc. — Dio Chrysostom, Orat. 13, Vol. 1, p. 418, Leipsic edit, of 1798. In this same oration Dio mentions, what the reader will find in Note A of the Appendix, foot-note 130, the character of his — somewhat monotheistic — teaching to the Romans. 32 "The [poll] tax on Jews was, to a greater extent than other taxes, exacted with the most unsparing severity (or bitterness, acerbissime). Persons were subjected to this who, with no profession of Judaism, lived after a Jewish manner, or who, by dissembling their [Jewish] de- scent, had avoided the tribute imposed on their race. I remember having been present, while yet a youth, when an old man of ninety years was inspected by a procurator in a crowded court, consilio, to discover whether he were circumcised." — Sueton. Domit. 12. 83 See Dio Chrysostom, quoted in note 31. A patrician writer who was in Rome during these troubles charges the death of Clemens upon Domi- tian. "That ferocious beast, ... as if shut up in a cave, now lapped the blood of relatives, now issued forth to the destruction and slaughter of the most renowned citizens. "— Pliny, Jun. Panegtjr. 48, 3. With this should be compared a passage by the same writer, which implies, apparently, that Clemens and Domitian were on good terms. " Imperial praises were celebrated at the same time in the Senate and in the theatre, by the actor and by the consul." — Pliny, Jun. Panegijr. 54, 1. The term "consul," rather than "the consuls" or "one of the consuls," can scarcely have meant another than Clemens; the theatre had probably, since Caligula's time, been an organ of the popular party. Pliny assumes, apparently, that what it or the popular party praised ought to receive condemnation in the Senate. 282 JUDAISM AT HOME. [CH. X. suppose that Domitian, after returning from the war, pun- ished the aristocracy, putting some of them to death and driving others into exile.34 Independently of any action by himself, the relatives of those murdered by the Senate were likely enough to prosecute the murderers, and a large share of the convictions may have been due to them rather than directly to Domitian. To accept the foregoing is to attribute falsehood, or very ambiguous language, to Pliny, Jun., an objection by no means insuperable.35 If we accept patrician accounts they admit but two plausible explanations : firstly, Domitian, who seems to have executed the laws rigidly, whether they favored him- self or his opponents, may have executed laws against foreign rites, or Jewish observances, so as to foreclose ground of complaint to his patrician enemies, when he executed other laws against themselves ; or, secondly, we may suppose that the occasional application to Domitian of the term "God" caused in some way trouble between him and the monotheists. Either of the two explanations is at best merely plausible, and would hardly account for the death of his cousin Clemens, to whom he must largely have intrusted matters when going to the war. 34 "Neither did flight and havoc follow your salutations [on arrival, O Trajan]." — Pliny, Jun., Panegijr. 48, 3. This seems to imply that Domitian's salutations on returning from the war were immediately fol- lowed by proceedings against the conspirators. 35 Pliny's Panegyric was a political tract. Among its objects the fol- lowing may be included : Misrepresentation of the popular party and monotheists, with some taunts of triumph over the former ; laudation of patricianism, including its faults ; flatter)' of Trajan, that he might be swayed towards patricianism. The Panegyric (11, l) represents Tiberius as having deified Augustus, and {Ibid.) Domitian as having deified Titus. The former can scarcely be an error ; it must be a falsehood. The lat- ter (see note 14) is contradicted by himself. If he charged on Domitian patrician crimes committed against him, he but imitated the dealing of his intimate friend Tacitus with Tiberius. (See Appendix, Note G, foot-note 122.) Such falsehoods must have been dangerous to contradict if they could be uttered while witnesses of their falsity were alive ; yet the same thing happened unquestionably in Caligula's time ; see Note G, foot-note 114. §n.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 81-96. 283 I suspect the expulsion of Stoics or philosophers to be a misnomer for the expulsion of some patrician conspira- tors, with or without one non-patrician Stoic.36 In the former probably the proportion of patricianism to phi- losophy was as a hundred to one.37 Plutarch, though he 36 Epictetus was a freednian of Epaphroditus, whose case can be better understood after a few words concerning the latter. Epaphroditus had been a libellis, secretary, or librarian, or master of requests, for Nero, and subsequently for Domitian. (Sueton. Nero, 49 ; Domit. 14.) The con- spirators had perhaps bought him over, for he was banished. Subse- quently he was put to death, though whether by Domitian, or after that emperor's death by persons anxious to get rid of his testimony, may admit question. Epictetus, the freedmau of Epaphroditus, if he had not pre- viously quitted Rome, may, because of his connection with the latter, have left the city or been banished. His somewhat dogged character, and his admiration of Helvidius (Epictet. Dissertat. 1, 2, 19-22; 4, 1, 123; Higginson's translat. pp. 9, 10, 308), might easily cause suspicion, though I am unaware of any distinct statement that he was banished. 87 "When Arulenus Rusticus published the praises of Psetus Thrasea, and Herennius Senecio those of Priscus Helvidius, it was construed into a capital crime ; and the rage of tyranny was let loose not only against the authors, but against their writings ; . . . crowning the deed by the expulsion of the professors of wisdom." —Tacitus, Agric. 2, Bonn's trans. According to Dio Cassius, Domitian "put to death Rusticus Arulenus because [?] he philosophized, and because he galled Thrasea a sacred man ; also Herennius Senecio, because [?] in a long life, subsequent to his quaestorship, he had offered himself for no office, and because he wrote the life of Helvidius Priscus. Not a few others were put to death on this same charge of philosophy [?], and all the others were again driven from Rome." — Dio Cass. 67, 13. The expression "again " may refer to the earlier expulsion under Vespasian, though the Chronicon of Eusebius, misled perhaps by it, mentions a prior expulsion under Domi- tian. One of the expelled " philosophers " was Arternidorus. Pliny, then pretor, was on a visit to him at his suburban residence, when the order for expulsion reached him, and lent him money to pay debts, or a debt, contracted for the noblest objects, ex jndcherrimus causis [to aid con- spiracy?], and this "when certain great and wealthy friends hesitated to do so." —Pliny, Epist. 3, 11. This visit was at the date quum essent philosophi ah urhe suhmoti, " when [the ?] philosophers were driven from 284 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. numbered Kusticus among his hearers, seems not to have been molested. The subjoined passages of Tacitus and Pliny may aid in fixing the date and character of proceedings by Domi- tian or others against senators.38 Elsewhere we can find the views and temper of the parties.39 The popular the city." — Ibid. On their number see note 38. Arteniidorus was a son-in-law of the Musonius mentioned in Ch. III. notes 45 and 75. The Helvidius Prisons mentioned above, and his father-in-law Thrasea Paetus, used on the birthdays of Brutus and Cassius (Juvenal, Satire, 5, 33, 37) to crown their heads with wreaths whilst drinking their wine, and, when Vespasian came as emperor to Rome, Helvidius alone addressed him as a private individual. The widow of this Helvidius, named Fan- nia, was still alive, and, at her request, Herennius Senecio, a patrician, wrote her husband's life, for which she supplied materials. Whether the writings of Helvidius openly advocated assassination we are not told. They probably leaned unmistakably in that direction, for the Senate felt compelled to order their suppression. Fannia succeeded, however, in preserving copies of them, and carrying them with her into exile. See Pliny, Epist. 7, 19. 38 Pliny {Epist. 3, 11), speaking of his visit to Arteniidorus, says that at that date three of his personal friends, Senecio, Rusticus, and Helvidius, had been put to death ; four others, Mauricus, Gratilla, Arria, and Fannia, had been banished. From this it appears that no simultaneous banish- ment by Domitian took place, but that more or less time must have been devoted to examination of the individual cases. Pliny's statement enables us to interpret moderately, or else as an effort at disguising patrician crime, the language of Tacitus : " Agricola did not behold the senate-house besieged, and the Senate enclosed by a circle of arms ; and in one havoc the massacre [by patrician conspirators ?] of so many consular men, the flight and banishment of so many honorable women. . . . Subsequently mox our own hands dragged Helvidius to prison ; ourselves were tortured with the spectacle of Mauricus and Rus- ticus, and sprinkled with the innocent blood of Senecio." —Tacitus, Agric. 45, Bohn's trans, altered. If the first massacre refers to the death, by patrician conspiracy, of Clemens and others connected with the pop- ular party, then, but not otherwise, is it comprehensible that the only friends of Pliny sbould have been those subsequently put to death. 89 Pliny affirms {Panegyr. 62,3): Domitian "hated those whom we [senators] loved, and we [hated] those whom he loved." " Nothing was more grateful [when you, Trajan, became emperor], nothing more worthy §ii.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 81-96. 285 party had during Domitian's reign gained one victory for humanity.40 If they were, as alleged by Suetonius, indif- ferent to his death, they had probably been disappointed in other matters.41 The sacrifices to Domitian were prob- of the age than what happened [that we] looked clown at the prosecutors, their faces on the ground and their necks twisting. We recognized and enjoyed it." — Pliny, Panegyr. 34,3, 4. The punishment alluded to consisted in fastening a man's neck by a forked stake to the ground, and heating him in a state of nudity with a rod. In the next section is men- tioned " a fleet of prosecutors committed to all the winds and compelled to spread its sails to the tempests." — Pliny, Panegyr. 35, l. This may mean that a large number of the popular party, instead of revenging their murdered or banished relatives and friends, were themselves compelled to fly. Unless it have this meaning, it is difficult to comprehend that one vessel should not have sufficed to carry all prosecutors. On the assassination of Domitian "the Senate was so overjoyed that they met in all haste, and in a full assembly reviled his memory in the most bitter terms ; ordering ladders to be brought in, and his shields and images to be pulled down before their eyes, and dashed in pieces upon the floor of the senate-house ; passing at the same time a decree to obliterate his titles everywhere, and abolish all memory of him." — Sueton. DomiL 23, Bohn's trans. " It was a delight to beat on the ground the proud countenances [of Domitian's statues], to strike them with iron, to rage against them with axes, ... to perceive the lacerated members, the broken limbs, and lastly the savage and dreaded images cast down and melted in the flames." — Pliny, Panegyr. 52, 4, 5. Compare note 27. 40 Domitian forbade the making of eunuchs. See Sueton. Domit. 7. 41 "The people showed little concern at his death, but the soldiers were roused by it to great indignation, and immediately endeavored to have him ranked among the gods. They were also ready to revenge his loss, if there had been any to take the lead. However, they soon after effected it, by resolutely demanding the punishment of all those who had been concerned in his assassination." — Sueton. DomiL 23, Bohn's trans. This patrician testimony, as to popular indifference, should be heard with caution or distrust. Pliny's statement (Panegyr. 52, 4), that the brazen images of Domitian remained after the gold and silver ones had been broken or melted, may imply that images erected by the common people were defended, while the aristocracy destroyed what they them- selves had set up. If this were so, however, Pliny must have wished to conceal, rather than convey, the information. 286 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. ably, as in Caligula's case, those of frightened conspirators anxious for their own safety.42 Proceedings against the Vestals will be hereafter mentioned. § in. A. D. 96 - 98. Nerva. Nerva, who succeeded Domitian, was of the popular party, as his grandfather had been. He and Dio Chry- sostom were personal friends.43 One of his first acts was to recall monotheists.44 Even if Domitian had already issued, as before mentioned, a similar order, the murder of that emperor might cause need for its repetition before monotheists could safely trust to it.45 Nerva's age and infirmities unfitted him to master the elements of violence and discord wherewith he had to contend, and he selected, voluntarily or otherwise, Trajan as his associate and successor. § iv. Position of Things about the Close of the First Century. The present section is devoted to some subjects which cannot be satisfactorily grouped in a chronological nar- rative. 1. Of senatorial families known to us in the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, not a name, I believe, reappears among senators under Trajan. If I am correct in this, the fact claims reflection. Sixty-one years only had elapsed between the deaths of Tiberius and Nerva. Yet in 42 Pliny mentions the streets (Paneyyr. 52, 7) as blocked by victims. Streets were very narrow, and Pliny's language perhaps extravagant. 43 See note 31. 44 " Nerva dismissed those condemned for unbelief, and brought back such as had fled [because of this charge], and . . . did not permit any to be accused of unbelief or of Jewish life." — Dio Cass. 63, 1. 45 A change which the aristocracy had effected by a murder, over which they were especially jubilant, might well create apprehension of some re- vulsion in favor of old ideas. Even the humane prohibition of Domitian against making eunuchs had to be re-enacted (Dio Cass. 68, 2) by Nerva, — an evidence that with Domitian's death it was supposed to have become either inoperative or not likely to be executed. §iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 287 that period, scarcely a lifetime, Koine's senatorial families had perished, largely no doubt by vice or violence, and been replaced by others no better than themselves. Even in our own country, where transition from public to private life is easy, some names known to political history a cen- tury ago are found in it to-day. In portions of Europe class privilege keeps the same names in public life for a much longer period. 2. The corruption of the judiciary is in several ways manifest.46 Patrician influence on courts must have been baneful. The wealth and political power of the aris- tocracy enabled them to pervert the administration of justice. Their willingness thus to misuse wealth and power is illustrated by the utter absence of shame where- with the younger Pliny mentions having accepted pay for slaves hired to influence a court.47 3. If we now turn to a subject connected with the de- cay of heathenism, namely, the extinction of oracles, we shall find heathens forced to a position respecting it, which could not but strengthen monotheists. In a dialogue left us by Lamprias,48 a relative of Plutarch, one 46 Compare notes 18, 19. 47 " Yesterday, two of my slaves . . . were hired at three denarii to applaud. ... At this price any quantity of seats are filled, a large crowd is gathered, infinite outbreaks of applause are effected at a signal from the leader. . . . You may know that the worst speaker will be most ap- plauded. " — Pliny Jun., Epist. 2, 14, §§ 6, 8. This was of course writ- ten when Pliny was somewhat disgusted with the court. Cp. note 105. 48 This document, entitled " De Oraculonim Defcdu," is usually or always quoted as Plutarch's, for no other reason, perhaps, than that it is published among his works. It claims, however, to be written by Lam- prias, and there is no reason for doubting its claim. The writer (c. 8, Plutarch, Opp. 7, p. 628, edit. Reiske) makes a speaker address him as Lamprias, and states (c. 38, Plutarch, Opp. 7, p. 695, edit. Reiske) that when he had finished some remarks, a Demetrius, who was present, sub- joined, "Lamprias gives us good counsel." A little further on (c. 38, Plutarch, Opp. 7, p. 697, edit. Reiske) he is addressed by the same speaker as Lamprias. Compare the recurrence twice of the name in c. 46, Plu- tarch, Opp. 7, pp. 711, 714. Plutarch had a grandfather, a brother, and, according to Suidas, a son 28S JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. speaker, Cleombrotus, takes ground that the oracles pro- ceeded from perishable and evil beings, half-way between divine and human, called demons.49 This was precisely the view of Jews and Christians. One of his hearers ad- mits a willingness to receive the view in part, namely, that there exists an intermediate race of beings between gods and men, but hesitates to assume that they are evil. His remarks, with the answer of Cleombrotus, are ap- pended below.50 named Lamprias. In determining which was author of the work, it de- serves note that he speaks of himself (47, Opp. 7, p. 715) as yet a young man. though not so young but that (38, Opp. 7, p. 697) he had al- ready discussed the same question in public. Further, one of the chief speakers in the present dialogue, as we are told at its commencement, is a native of Tarsus named Demetrius, a grammarian, on his return from a visit to Britain. Such a visit was not likely to be made, nor yet to be represented in a fiction as made, before the latter half of the first cen- tury, when Plutarch's brother or son might have been young, but when his grandfather must have been in extreme old age or dead. This date for the document is confirmed by facts mentioned at the close of foot- note 51. The work, therefore, is probably by his brother or son. In Smith's Did. of B log. the article Lamprias understands the above passages, or some of them, as referring to Plutarch's grandfather, but on what ground it does not state. 49 " They appear to me to solve more and greater difficulties, who dis- cover the race of demons half-way between gods and men." — De Defect. Orac. 10; Plutarch, Opp. 7, p. 633. "As regards keeping feasts and sacrifices, and unlucky or ill-omened days in which meat is eaten raw and pulled to pieces, [or as regards] fastings and wailings, and often also foul language IN secret observances and other crazy behavior, agitation [of body], neck twisting and contortions, I should say that such propi- tiation and exhortation was not addressed to any god, but [intended] to ward off some evil demon." — De Defect. Orac. 14 ; Plutarch, Opp. 7, pp. 642, 643. 60 "Heracleon remarked: It does not appear to me badly laid down that oracles are presided over, not by gods, who cannot appropriately be CONCERNED with earthly matters, but by demons, servants of the gods. But that any one, taking almost by a stretch from the words of Empedo- cles, should attribute to these demons sins and bewilderments and di- vinely occasioned wanderings, and should represent them as perishable §iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 289 In the immediately following portion of the dialogue, a narrative is introduced by Cleombrotus to support the position that demons are perishable.51 The narrative must have had some currency at the time, or it would hardly have been adduced as evidence. Its chief interest is its additional testimony to a growing disbelief among all and mortal like a man, is, in my opinion, somewhat bold and barbaric [that is, Jewish]. " Cleombrotus thereupon asked Philip who and whence the young man was, and having learned his name and city, replied : It did not escape ourselves, 0 Heracleon, that we were getting into [apparently] absurd teachings ; but in dealing with grand subjects we cannot avoid laying down grand starting-points, if we are to attain tenable results [or, more literally, "probability in our opinions"]. You do not perceive that you withdraw what you concede. For you confess that there are demons ; but by regarding them as neither wicked nor perishable, you no longer make them demons. For in what do they differ from the gods, if they have a nature [or substance, ovaiav] which is imperishable, and a charac- ter [or natural endowment, aper-qv] incapable of suffering or sin." — De Defect. Orac. 16 ; Plutarch, Opp. 7, pp. 648, 649. 51 According to Cleombrotus, one of his fellow-citizens named Epi- therses had a son named ^Emilianus, a rhetorician, whom some of those present at the colloquy had heard. This jEmilianus narrated to Cle- ombrotus that while yet a young man he made a voyage to Italy ; that when opposite the island or islands called Paxi, whilst nearly all the passengers were awake and some of them yet at table, a voice from the island called by name on Thamus. This was an Egyptian pilot, known to but few of the passengers. The voice asked him, that when arrived at Palodes, he should announce that the great Pan was dead. He did so, and a loud lamentation was immediately heard from, as seems implied in the narrative, invisible beings. The news reached Tiberius, who ques- tioned Thamus and attached such credit to the story as to make thorough inquiry about Pan. The scholars, who surrounded Tiberius, regarded the deceased being as the son of Mercury and Penelope. Philip, one of the speakers in the dialogue, knew other witnesses to the narrative who had heard it from /Emilianus when he was an old man. See c. 17, Plutarch, Opp. 7, pp. 650-652. It will be noticed as bear- ing on the date of this document that iEmilianus was a young man when Tiberius was emperor (a. d. 14-37), that he was an old man when he narrated these circumstances to persons from whom Philip had subse- quently heard them. 13 s 290 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. classes in the divine nature of those beings whom hea- thens had once regarded as gods. The question as to why these once-celebrated oracles had died out, was scarcely new. We find broached more than a century earlier, in Cicero's writings, the analogous one, why the oracle at Delphi was no longer able to pre- dict truly, why its power was dying out. Cicero puts into his brother's mouth an answer suited to Stoic concep- tions.52 But the ground is nowhere, I think, taken in Cicero that the beings whom heathens worshipped were perishable and evil. The explanation which Lamprias puts into the mouth of a Cynic, concerning the cessation of oracles,53 illus- trates the absence of moral influence in what the heathens called religion. He himself, after the way had been pre- pared by other speakers, takes Stoic ground concerning one supreme being.54 4. Another item connected with monotheistic progress was the extra effort needed to keep up a belief in omens. 62 See pp. 157, 158. 63 At the outset of the discussion a Cynic named Didymus, who was also called Planetiades, exclaims sarcastically, "You bring us a matter hard to be determined and calling for much inquiry. ... I propose on the contrary that you puzzle over [the question] why [the god] did not long ago renounce [answering], or why Hercules, or some other god, did not steal away his tripod, heaped with shameful and godless (adtwv) ques- tions, sometimes proposed by persons [unbelievers ?] who wish to test his logical powers, at other times by persons [believers] persistently inquir- ing about treasures or inheritances or lawless marriages." — De Defect. Orac. 7 ; Plutarch, Opp. 7, pp. 626, 627. 54 Lamprias refers to the Stoic interrogatories concerning one immortal deity called Foreknowledge or Fate, instead of many Jupiters or Joves, and then continues: "What necessity is there that many Jupiters should exist, even if there be several [successive?] worlds, and that there should not be over each a chief ruler and divine director of the whole, having both intelligence and reason, such as among us [Stoics] is called Lord of all things and Father ? Or what shall prohibit all from being subordi- nate to the fate and foreknowledge of Jupiter, and that he should in part oversee and direct " ? — De Defect. Orac. 29 ; Plutarch, Opp. 7, pp. 678, 679. On the term " Father," see pp. 52, 53. § iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 291 There would seem, to one unacquainted with ancient his- tory, no reason why the Jews, or early Christians, should as a body have opposed attention to omens, or why con- servative heathens should have upheld it. But, had omens been done away, nothing would have been left of the heathen religion. Monotheists attacked the study of omens, because it was an attention to evil beings, the enemies of God.65 Heathen conservatives upheld this study because of its supposed connection with their own privileges. Nearly half a century before the Christian era, when the battle between the contending parties had made less progress, Cicero, though a conservative, could, during popular ascendency, ridicule attention to omens ;56 but, at the present period, we find Tacitus and Suetonius carefully incorporating a record of them into their works. Tacitus places them under the respective years in his Annals. Suetonius places them at the beginning and end of his biographies. A century later, Dio Cassius kept up the hopeless effort to make history subserve a belief in omens. 5. The public games had, since the days of Augustus, beei\ chiefly fostered in times of aristocratic ascendency,57 65 Compare pp. 37 - 40. 56 "Among us, omens on the left are deemed favorable; among Greeks and barbarians, those on the right. . . . We established the left hand, they the right, because in most cases it had appeared to be [the] more auspicious. What a discord is this ? What [a further discord that] they use [for divination] different birds, and different omens, that their [method of] observation is different, and their answers [based on the same events] are different." --Cicero, De DivinaL 2 (39), 82, S3. The open utter- ance of this in the days of Trajan would probably have placed the speaker in antagonism to the aristocracy. At a still later day some heathens wished to burn his works; see Ch. V. note 64. 67 Even before the time of Augustus it is probable that, with few excep- tions, those heathens, who were most allied with monotheism, discouraged these games. Thus, when Cicero's brother succeeded to Flaccus in Asia Minor, he promptly put an end to any such exhibitions at the public expense, as we learn from Cicero's letter to him, quoted on p. 72, note 2. Cicero speaks of their cost. His brother may have been equally, or more, actuated by their immoral tendencies. 292 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. and seem to have become conformed to the tastes of the more reckless,58 so that some, even of aristocratic tenden- cies, if their self-respect was not drowned by party bigotry, or silenced by dominant sentiment, manifested repugnance towards them.69 Conservatives had created a partisan 68 Augustus, though he had a degrading fondness (see Suetonius, Au- gustus, 45) for witnessing even the fisticuffs of street rowdies, yet (see Suetonius, Atigushisy 44) forbade women to be present at exhibitions of "athletes," which, probably, included wrestling, boxing, and racing, while in gladiatorial fights he restricted them to distant benches of the thea- tre, apart from the men. The brutality of these spectacles had, in times of patrician dominance, become more fearful. According to Dio Cassius (68, 15), the games, after Trajan's victory over the Dacians, lasted one hundred and twenty-three days. Eleven thousand animals, wild and domestic, were killed in them, and ten thousand men were compelled to fight duels. "We may fairly infer that most of these were killed, since, otherwise, five hundred of them would have been sufficient to keep up a continuous fight. Had these men, mostly no doubt captives, been murdered in cold blood when they surrendered, the inhumanity would have been sufficiently unusual to have shocked mankind. The method of their murder was even more inhuman than such a supposed massacre. But custom and party bigotry had destroyed moral vision, so that only exceptional individuals in the conservative party uttered their voice, or their whisper, on the subject. The statement of the Apocalypse (18, 24) concerning Rome, " In her was found the blood ... of all who have been slaughtered on earth," seems but a strong figure; nor is it to be wondered at if many shared the feeling in another of its passages (18, 6), " Repay her as she repaid others; yes, give her twice twofold of her own doings." What, too, must have been the industrial state of a community which could absent itself from labor during one third of a year at these butcheries ! 69 The younger Pliny writes that he had been called by Trajan into a counsel for adjudicating on the following question: "Among the Viennese [inhabitants of Vienne near Lyons in France] a gymnastic contest was regularly celebrated at the expense of some one's bequest. Trebonius Rufinus, an excellent man, a friend of ours, took care during his duumvirate to do away and abolish it. His authority as a public officer to do this was denied. He plead his own cause not less skilfully than learnedly. A commendation of his action was, that he spoke de- liberately and gravely in regard to his business, as if he were a Rom am and a good citizen. When the opinions of each in rotation were asked, §i\\] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 293 feeling in favor of these brutalities, by which the better members of their own body were silenced. Nerva's pro- hibition of them may have pleased more than the mono- theists and their friends.60 6. On the subject of social gatherings and suppers, the reader should weigh well the testimony of Pliny in Ch. II. note 25, and in the extract below,61 concerning Junius Mauricus, than whom nothing is more firm or truthful, said that 'the contest ought not to be restored to the Viennese.' He added, 'I wish that it could be done away at Rome.' ... It was decided that the con- test be done away, which had infected the morals of the Viennese as has ours of all mankind. For the vices of the Viennese are confined to themselves. Ours spread fin every direction] widely." — Pliny, Jun. Epist. 4, 22. It is apparent that Rufinus must have been an independent man. Pliny's statement implies this, and suggests moreover the follow- ing considerations. Rufinus commends his cause by speaking as "a Roman" and "a good citizen." Did he skilfully ignore monotheistic reasoning or un-aristocratic leanings? He spoke "deliberately and gravely." Did monotheists and their allies, or did the excitable por- tion of them, substitute, too frequently, ill-considered denunciations for argument? Compare Paul's advice in Ch. VIII. note 159. Pliny must have feared lest Mauricus should, because of his utterance, be regarded as untrue to the patricians, for he inserts in his letter a remark of opposite tendency made by him at Nerva's table, attributing to that emperor undue leniency towards enemies of the Senate. Pliny himself, as we shall find in the course of this section (see note 108), held, when external support was lacking, opposite views to what he has here expressed. Tacitus speaks of the German women as "hedged in by chastity; corrupted by no seductive public games, by no provocatives at private entertainments." — De Moribus German. 19. He preferred, possibly, to give prominence to these rather than to monotheist women. 60 See note 22, of Ch. V. If we compare a quotation (Ch. V. note 22) from Dio Cassius with the reasons which Cicero, in note 57, assigns for his brother's abolition of public games, and with Pliny's defence of his friend Mauricus in note 59, we can hardly avoid the conclusion that con- servatives, who saw the injurious influences of these games, hesitated to advocate their abolition on exclusively moral grounds, lest they should be regarded as untrue to the state religion and to the senatorial party. 61 Pliny has left us a letter "to his [friend] Genitor," the same, doubt- less, whom he elsewhere addresses, or mentions, as "Julius Genitor," 294 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. their character ; and the testimony of Tacitus, just given in note 59, concerning their effects on women; and com- pare the same with Pliny's allegations in the first-men- tioned note, concerning suppers of " Foreign Superstition." On the younger class of men, or on any who had not in- dependence enough of character to revolt at what was debasing, these indecencies at entertainments must have been corrupting. Even some, who disapproved, would become familiar with, and hardened to them. Human history justifies the supposition, that opposition to the monotheists may have been among the supporting mo- tives for so indefensible a custom. Plutarch wrote more than five hundred pages of Table Conversations, with the and whom in Book 3, Epistle 3, he recommends for the position of guar- dian and instructor as "a man of rectitude and gravity, somewhat un- attractive, even, and austere, judged by prevailing license." The general import of a letter, received from Genitor, can be judged by the following from Pliny's answer : "I have received your letters in which you complain that a most magnificent supper was repulsive to you, because buffoons, [indecent] dancers, and fools were wandering among the tables. Will you relax somewhat of your frown ? I truly have [at my table] nothing such. Yet I bear with those who have. Why do I not have it ? Because, if something lascivious is introduced by a dancer, something obscene by a buffoon, or something foolish by a fool, it by no means delights me as unanticipated or joyous. I tell you not my judgment but my taste. And, on this account, how many do you think that there are, whom the very things, by which we are delighted and carried away, would offend, in some cases as silly, in others as extremely affected. . . . Let us grant, therefore, indulgence to the pleasures of others that we may obtain it for our own." — Pliny, Juii. 9, 17. No allegation is made that these im- proprieties offended Pliny's moral sense. On the contrary, he gives us to understand that his judgment did not condemn them. It was in his eyes a mere matter of taste, in which those who enjoyed it were entitled to their predilections. Dio Chrysostom mentions the latter part of the feast : " When a con- jurer enters, or a clown, or some other such person, . . . but conversa- tion by which men are rendered prosperous and better and more temperate, and better fitted for civil duties, you do not often hear." — Dio Chry- sostom, Orat. 32, 4. §iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 295 intention, apparently, of suggesting means for amending the evil.62 7. The defects of fashionable education had prob- ably not abated since their portrayal in the Be, Oratori- btos.68 62 Plutarch's "Table Conversations" are arranged in nine books, to accord, as he tells us in his Preface to Book 9, with the number of the muses. Each book was intended to contain a " decade " of conversations, but he seems to have had five extra subjects which he put into the last book. The latter half of the fourth book is lost, except the headings of its subjects, which Kaltwasser, the German translator, gives — I know not from what source — on p. 279 of Vol. 5. The following extract is from the Preface to Book 7 : " The [prevalent] frivolities over the wine- cup penetrate the silly multitude [even] to their emotions, and pervert them, so that it is no less desirable to select approved subjects of conver- sation than approved friends for one's feasts ; [friends] who in thought and speech shall contravene Lacedemonian usage. For the Lacedemo- nians, when they receive a young man or a guest into the dining-hall, re- mark, showing him the folding doors, ' No discourse [here uttered] goes outside of this.' But from us [Plutarch is addressing a friend and com- panion at meals], who have jointly accustomed ourselves to use the same [class of] discourses, there is exit for all things to all men, because the sub- jects contain nothing intemperate, nor blasphemous, nor immoral, nor yet anything slavish. This can be determined from the examples whereof the present book contains the seventh decade." — Plutarch, Symposiacon, Preface to Book 7. Opp. Moral. 8, p. 786 ; Hutten's edit. 11, pp. 281, 282. 63 The De Oratoribus was written (c. 1 7) in A. d. 75, by one who had already reached middle life, for he mentions (c. 1), "those whom I heard, juvenis admodum, in early manhood." Tacitus, to whom it is some- times erroneously attributed, was (Pliny, Epist. 7, 20) of the same age as the younger Pliny, who must, in A. D. 75, have been but fourteen or fif- teen years old. Pliny, Epist. 6, 20. " In the present age what is our practice ? The infant is committed to a Greek chambermaid, and a slave or two, chosen for the purpose, gen- erally the worst of the whole household train, and unfit for any office of trust. From the idle tales and gross absurdities of these people, the tender and uninstructed mind is suffered to receive its earliest impres- sions. Throughout the house not one servant cares what he says or does in the presence of his young master ; and, indeed, how should it be other- wise ? since the parents themselves are so far from training their young 296 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. 8. If we now turn to the Vestal Virgins, we find that all, or nearly all, of them must have belonged to aristo- cratic society.61 A change like this since the days of Augustus and Tiberius <* implies some powerful agency at work. This agency cannot have been an increased be- lief in the old religion. It may have been, and in all probability was, the spirit of opposition to monotheism, families to virtue and modesty, that they set them the first examples of luxury and licentiousness. Thus our youth gradually acquire a confirmed habit of impudence [immodesty ?], and a total disregard of that reverence [respect ?] they owe both to themselves and to others. To say truth, it seems as if a fondness for horses, actors, and gladiators, the peculiar and distinguishing folly of this our city, was impressed upon them even in the womb ; and when once a passion of this contemptible sort has seized and engaged the mind, what opening is there left for the noble arts ? Who talks of anything else in our houses ? If we enter the schools, what other subjects of conversation do we hear among the boys '( The preceptors themselves choose no other topic more frequently to entertain their hearers ; for it is not by establishing a strict discipline, or by giving proofs of their genius, that this order of men gain pupils, but by fawning and flattery. Not to mention how ill-instructed our youth are in the very elements of literature, sufficient pains are by no means taken in bringing them ac- quainted with the best authors, or in giving them a proper notion of his- tory, together with a knowledge of men and things. The whole that seems to be considered in their education is, to find out a person for them called a rhetorician. I will presently give you some account of the in- traduction of this profession at Rome, and show you with what contempt it was received by our ancestors."— De Oratoribus, 29, Bohn's trans. The concluding remark betrays a conservative's respect for antiquity. 64 Two of these virgins were named Ocellatse (Sueton. Domit. 8), and must, doubtless, have been relatives of the Emperor Galba, whom the Senate favored for his position, because he was an embodiment of their views as contrasted with popular ideas. Another, named Junia, was a relative of the Fannia (Pliny, Jun. 7, 19, l) who was the wife of Helvidius Priscus. Licinianus, the paramour of another named Cornelia, was de- fended by Herennius Senecio, a leader among the senators (Pliny, Jun. 4, 11, 12, 13). Cornelia, moreover, was chief Vestal, and would hardly have had for subordinates the members of patrician families, unless she equalled them, at least, in rank. The whole number of Vestals was but six, so that not less than two thirds were of patrician rank. 65 Compare remarks on pages 176, 190. §iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 297 prompting patricians, in spite of natural affection, to place their female relatives in an uncoveted, and morally dangerous position, as a means of maintaining " old cus- toms." These "old customs" must, one would think, have given strong evidence of decline, if their defenders resorted to such measures for their support. In deter- mining the moral danger and moral repulsiveness of Vestal duties, we must remember that the official position of these girls would have caused it to be noticed as a slight, had they habitually absented themselves from the public indecencies and brutalities of the circus, where special seats were provided for them. We must recollect, also, that their ten years' novitiate — apart from pa- rental care — was expected to begin when they were not yet ten years old ; though the impracticability of prevent- ing the older members from dying must, one would think, have occasionally compelled less juvenile selections. Three were convicted of unchastity in the time of Donii- tian, two of whom confessed themselves guilty. 9. We will now consider some views, actions, or for- tunes of Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, Tacitus, and Pliny, four prominent individuals of this era. Dio Chrysostom was born in the strongly monotheistic province of Bithynia, in Asia Minor. No one of his own time seems to have equalled him in earnest eloquence.66 His writings bear evidence that he was not merely exer- cising his mental faculties, nor aiming at literary fame, but that his feelings were warmly enlisted in questions 66 The article in Smith's Dictionary says : "All the extant orations of Dion are distinguished for their refined and elegant style ; the author most successfully imitated the classic writers of Greece, ... his ardent study of these models, combined with his own eminent talents, his fine and pleasing voice, and his skill in extempore speaking, raised him at once above all contemporary rhetoricians. His style is throughout clear and, generally speaking, free from artificial embellishment, though he is not always able to escape from the influence of the Asiatic school of rhetoric." — Smith, Did. of Biog. Vol. 1, p. 1031, col. 2. The same article quotes Niebuhr's opinion (p. 1032, col. 1), that he was the first writer after [the time of] Tiberius that greatly contributed towards the revival of Greek literature. 13* 298 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. connected with human improvement.67 A man of wealth and, at home certainly, of influence, the personal friend, moreover, of Nerva and Trajan, he strove, not for honors or privileges, but for the physical comfort and moral weli- being of his fellows. Outside of avowed monotheists, no writer stood so close as he to monotheism. This is less noticeable in his occasional leaning to the idea of one Supreme Deity,68 than in his willingness to contra- dict heathen, and earnestly defend monotheistic, views concerning the moral character necessary in a divine being.69 He was the friend, apparently, of a prominent 67 The article quoted in the foregoing note, says (p. 1031, col. 1) that Dio's chief object was " to apply the doctrines of philosophy to the pur- poses of practical life, and more especially to the administration of public affairs." It also quotes (p. 1032, col. 1) Niebuhr's statement : "He appears in all he wrote as a man of amiable character and free from the vanity of ordinary rhetoricians, though one perceives the silent conscious- ness of his powers. . . . Whenever he touches upon the actual state of things in which he lived, he shows his master mind." For " silent con- sciousness of his powers," in this statement of Niebuhr, I should substi- tute " deep conviction that he was speaking important truth." 68 Dio, in one of his discourses, compares a city, perpetually ravaged by its rulers, and revolting against them, with one " ruled in reality, [that is] in kindness and agreement, according to that law which the wisest and oldest governor and lawgiver, the director of the whole heaven and the ruler of all which exists, has ordained for mortals and immortals, be himself being guided (ourws) by the same law, and exhibiting an ex- ample of his own administration ; of a prosperous and happy organiza- tion."— Dio Chrysostom, Oral. 36, 12, pp. 446, 447 ; Reiske's edit. Vol. 2, p. 89. 69 To deny that a divine nature could be irritable and peevish might seem, to most modern readers, harmless enough. But, if the gods were not irritable, there was no need of pacifying them with sacrifices, or of studying by various contrivances the fluctuations of their dispositions; in other words, the whole heathen religion was at an end. Dio Chrysostom asks and affirms : "As [in judging of] a man, yet rather [in judging of] a god, or the gods, 6ebvt ?) roi>s deofo, if you deem them illustrious, do you deem them not just and sensible, with self-control, and possessing the other virtues, but unjust, unreasonable, and [in their desires] ungoverned? [You answer,] Not I. "Therefore, also, as regards a demon [compare note 50], if you pro- § iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 299 Christian,70 and appealed in support of moral teachings to monotheistic writings.71 In consequence of this, it probably was, that, during Pliny's persecution of the Christians, a mob attacked and, it would seem, burned Dio's house, and the narrow-minded partisanship of Pliny would have caused him a yet further annoyance, had not Trajan intervened. The sources of the preceding information are two ora- tions by Dio, a letter of Pliny, and a response from Trajan. Dio had been engaged in erecting some public buildings. Certain porticos or colonnades were made a subject of complaint.72 His language concerning these complaints nounce one to be illustrious, [do] you [not] manifestly pronounce it to be just, useful, and sensible ? How otherwise [you say] ? Or as regards one whom you deem low. [Do] you [not] decide it to be useless, unjust, and unreasonable. ? Of course. What then ! Will not each man live ac- cording to [the character of] his [presiding] demon, whatever that may be ? Will he live according to a different one ? By no means. There- fore [do] you [not] expect a man who has an illustrious demon to live just- ly, sensibly, and temperately ; since you confess his demon to be of this character ? Assuredly. And him [who has obtained] a worthless demon [you expect to live] uselessly and foolishly, unreasonably and without self-restraint ? These things follow obviously from what has been said. " Now then, whatever man, having understanding, is just and tem- perate he is €v8aifj.(Dv, prosperous, being united to an illustrious demon. Whoever is riotous, senseless, and a doer of all evil, we must necessarily affirm him to be KaKodaL/xova, ill-starred, yoked to and serving a low demon ? Certainly." —Dio Chrysostom, 23, 3, 4, Vol. 2, pp. 277, 278 ; Reiske's edit. Vol. 1, p. 515. The term "demon," in the foregoing, seems to be used for a being inter- mediate between divine and human. Dio judged all beings by a moral standard. 70 See in note 31 of this chapter, extract from Dio, Oral. 13. 71 See in the Appendix, Note A, foot-note 130. 72 This appears in Oration 47, 5, and is alluded to, apparently, in Ora- tion 46, 3. The consecutive numbering of these two orations, the repe- tition of this same subject in each, the allusion in the former to an attack on his house, and in the latter to its destruction, imply that the orations are of about the same date. The latter of the two orations alludes to Nero's Golden Palace. This was burnt in a. d. 104. The conflagration o 00 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. and concerning the attack on his house is not only free from bitterness, but marked in some passages by a good spirit which it would be difficult to match in heathen writers, or even in some Christian ones.73 In judging would temporarily excite public attention and render an allusion to the building more probable at that time than at any other. This same year, 104, or the preceding one, 103, is assigned by Smith (Diet, of Biog., art. Trajan, Vol. 3, p. 1167, col. 2 ; cp. p. 422, col. 1) for the commence- ment of an eighteen months, or two years' proconsulship of Pliny in Bithynia ; and we know from his correspondence with Trajan, that Dio was then there, and had been engaged in public building, which was made a subject of complaint. Compare note 76. 73 " Learn first, that stones and fire, which to you seem fearful, are not so in reality. Neither by such weapons are you powerful, but [on the contrary make yourselves] the weakest of men. . . . The strength of a city and of a people consists in other things, and firstly in thoughtful- ness and the performance of justice. . . . Why . . . are you angry with me . . . and bring stones and fire against us ? . . . No one of my neigh- bors, whether rich or poor, — and I have many such neighbors, — ever charged, either justly or unjustly, that he had been robbed of anything, or exiled' by me. . . . "What is that which I am able and unwilling to do, to save you from want ? Or why is it that — because of my building the colonnades at the warm springs and the workshops — you are so disposed against me ? This it is, some say, in which the city has been injured by me. And what man did ever you, or any one else [previously], blame for building up his own ground and home ? Is wheat dearer for [my doing] this ? . . . " I would not have warded jrou off [they had, temporarily, at least, given up the attack], but in this respect it will be safe for you to burn the house. It will be sufficient for me, taking my wife and child, to depart. And let no one suppose, that I have spoken thus from anger on my own account, rather than from fear on yours, lest you be reported as violent and lawless. For of what takes place in the [different] cities nothing escapes the rulers, I mean rulers greater than those here." — Dio Chrys. Oration 46, 1, 2, 3, 4, pp. 518-522 ; Reiske's edit. Vol. 2, pp. 212-219. The last remark may mean that Trajan would be less indifferent than Pliny to the wrong done. In the next oration, addressed again to his townspeople, he continues : " What, therefore, do you wish ? I swear to you by all the gods, that rather than vex you, or any of you, or to seem burdensome, I would not § rr.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 301 whether his difficulties were purely local, or whether the strife between monotheism and heathenism had prompted or embittered them, two things seem deserving of con- sideration. Dio defends himself by the example of per- sons who were " well born " and " thorough Greeks," 74 that is, who were conservative heathens.75 He makes a specific head of the charge against him concerning sepul- chres and images,76 and Pliny lays stress on a constructive choose for my own the possessions of King Darius or those of Croesus, or my former home, which was, in a true sense, a golden one, and not merely in name, like that which they called Nero's. . . . Advise me, as I requested [touching the colonnades], since with a wish to please you in every way I am at a loss. For now, if I touch the undertaking, and exert myself for its completion, some say ' that I am lording it [over them], and undermining [or else ingulfing] the city and ra lepa 7rdj>ra, ALL sacred things, for it is manifest that 1 burnt the temple of Jupiter, and floated the images away from the mill, and that they are now lying in the most public part of the city.' If I do nothing, not wishing any one to grumble, nor [on my part] to quarrel with any one, you all cry out, 'Let the work be finished, or let that which has been done be pulled down,' as if casting it up to me in reproach. What, therefore, do you wish me to do ? For I will do what you say." — Dio Chrys. Orat. 47, o, s, pp. 526, 527, 528 ; edit. Reiske, Vol. 2, pp. 227, 228, 231, 232. The fore- going allusion by Dio to his former home gives probability to the sur- mise that it had been violently destroyed. It evidently no longer existed. 74 "I wish you to counsel me whether I shall at my own expense tear down what has been done, and make everything as it was before. . . . or tell me what . . . [you wish]. For I should think, whilst seeing other cities zealous for such [structures], not only those in Asia, Syria, and Cilicia, but our next neighbors of Nicomedia, Nicsea, and Csesarea^ men well born and 6dpa "EXA^a?, intensely Greek, inhabiting a much smaller city [less able, therefore, to bear the expense] and under separate governments, and if they differ about other things, yet of one mind about such [structures], and the emperor by good fortune enjoining such, because he wishes in every way that your city should be increased (permit me to read his epistle . . .), — I should think that you would have the same structures and that no one would be displeased at the city's adornment." — Dio Chrys. Orat. 47, 5, p. 526, Reiske's edit. Vol. 2, pp. 226, 227. 75 See Ch. VII. note 26. 76 "So far as concerns the sepulchres and the sacred structures, it will 302 • JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. lack of regard in Dio towards the heathen religion. This last charge needs a word of explanation. There was in the public building which Dio had erected a library, and in this library an image of Trajan. If Trajan were really " divine," then it would, according to ancient ideas, be a pollution to the image of the god, that a dead body should be placed in proximity to it. But in a court, or lawn, near by, Dio's wife and child lay buried. The advocate who was employed to prosecute Dio for breach, or insuffi- cient performance of contract in erecting the building, seems to have been ashamed of this additional charge. Yet Pliny — who had already more than once deferred settling these accounts, which Dio was anxious to close, and who had, at the request of Dio's opponents, moved their examination to another town — delayed the whole matter for the purpose of communicating to the emperor concerning his statue.77 The emperor responded that not be proper to omit, that, for the inhabitants of Antioch, it is not al- lowed [speaking by contraries ?] to undertake anything of the kind, . . . whose city is thirty-six stadia [about four and a half miles] long, and they have made colonnades on either side. Nor yet the inhabitants of Tarsus or of Nicomedia, who voted to remove the sepulchres. And Macrinus, whom they [the Nicomedians] enrolled as a benefactor of the city, transferred out of the market-place the sepulchre of King Prusias and also his image. For among them there was [we may assume] no one who loved his city or cared about the gods ; but among us such were plentiful. "But be the foregoing matters as they may, what need had I [spe- cially] of a colonnade there, as if . . . I only was to promenade there and none of the other citizens ? " — Dio Chrys. 47, 7 ; edit. Reiske, Vol. 2, pp. 229, 230. 77 "Whilst I was despatching some public affairs, sir, at Prusa, with an intention of leaving that city the same day, the magistrate Asclepi- ades informed me, that Eumolpus had appealed to me from a motion which Cocceianus Dion made in their Senate. Dion, it seems, having been ap- pointed supervisor of a public edifice, desired that it might be assigned to the city in form. Eumolpus, who was counsel for Flavins Archippus, insisted that Dion should first be required to deliver in his accounts re- lating to this work, before it was assigned to the corporation ; suggesting he had not performed his duty in the manner he. ought. . He took notice § iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 303 Dio's accounts with the public were of course to be duly examined, but that the statue was a matter about which Pliny ought not to have written him.78 at the same time, that this building, in which your statue is erected, was made use of also for the burial of the dead, the bodies of Dion's wife and son being (as he asserted) there deposited; and petitioned that I would hear this cause in the public tribunal. Upon my complying with his request, and deferring my journey for that purpose, he desired a longer day in order to prepare the cause, and that I would try it in some other city. I appointed the city of Nicea, where, when I took my seat, Eumolpus, pretending not to be yet sufficiently instructed, moved that the trial might be again put off; Dion, on the contrary, insisted that it should be heard. They debated this point very fully on both sides, and entered a little into the merits of the cause; when, being of an opinion that it was reasonable [advisable] it should be adjourned, and thinking it proper to advise with you in an affair which was of conse- quence in point of example, I directed them to give in the articles of their respective allegations in writing; for I was desirous you should judge from their own words of what was offered on each part. This Dion promised to do, as Eumolpus also assured me he would draw up in writing what he had to allege on the part of the community. But he added, that, being only concerned as advocate on behalf of Archippus, whose instructions he had laid before me, he had nothing to charge with respect to the sepulchres. Archippus, however, for whom Eumolpus was counsel here, at Prusa, undertook to present an accusation upon this head in writing. But neither Eumolpus nor Archippus (though I have waited several days for that purpose) have yet performed their engagement: Dion indeed has; and I have annexed his memorial to this letter. I have taken a view myself of the buildings, where I find your statue is placed in a library ; and as to the edifice which is supposed to contain the bodies of Dion's wife and son, it stands in the middle of an area, which is surrounded with a colonnade. I particularly, therefore, entreat you, sir, to direct my judgment in the determination of this cause above all others, as it is a point to which the world is greatly attentive. And, indeed, it highly deserves a very mature deliberation, since the fact is not only acknowledged, but countenanced by many examples." — Pliny, Jun. 10, 85, Melmoth's trans. 78 «^s y0U wejj know> my dear Pliny, it is the fixed maxim of my government not to create an awe of my person by severe and rigorous measures, and by construing every slight offence into an act of treason, there was no occasion for you to hesitate a moment upon the point, 304 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. The wife and child, interred near the public library, may have been the same whom Dio, in his Oration, 46, 4 (quoted in note 73), mentions as alive. If so, the ques- tion suggests itself, whether a violent destruction of his home can have hastened his wife's death. Pliny's behavior towards Dio is only to be accounted for, by supposing that personal or political feeling had impelled him into an unworthy and contemptible course. Under Trajan's rule and Pliny's proconsulship, zeal for heathenism was doubtless a passport to office, of which Dio's enemies availed themselves. But in Trajan this tendency was more modified by equity, or else by personal regard for Dio, than in Pliny. I am unaware of any in- stance in which Dio attempted to preserve, or improve, his own standing by disparagement of Jews or Christians. Unwillingness to seek favor or avoid persecution, in such a way, is no slight evidence of true-heartedness and self- respect. The appeal from a decision of the city senate to Pliny implies that the former body favored Dio. The removal of the trial from Prusa — its appropriate place of hearing, and where any evidence would be most accessible — ad- mits but one plausible solution. Public opinion there must have favored Dio. His opponents must have wished to withdraw the trial from any such influence. This im- plies, howTever, that the opposition to him, which appears in notes 72 and 73, must have been unsustained by public sentiment, or, at least, must have been short-lived. Perhaps it may have been instigated by the self-interest of a few. concerning which you thought proper to consult me. Without entering, therefore, into that question (to which I wtould by no means give an"S ATTENTION, THOUGH THERE WERE EVER SO MANY INSTANCES OF THE same kind), I recommend to your care the examination of Dion's ac- counts relating to the public works which he has finished ; as it is a case in which the interest of the city is concerned, and as Dion neither ought, nor indeed does refuse to submit to the inquiry." — Trajan, in Pliny, Jim. 10, 86, Melmoth's trans. An equally probable translation of what succeeds the parenthesis is the following: "Let an account of the whole work effecti sub cura tua, accomplished under your jurisdiction, be exacted from Cocceianus Dio." §iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 305 The facility with which Pliny permitted himself to be diverted from a simple business matter, by alleged clanger to religion, may aid our understanding of other events in his proconsulship, which we shall hereafter consider. 10. Plutarch, the next on our list, stood one remove further than Dio from monotheistic ground. The remove was a tolerably broad one, unless I am deceived as to the following remark. Dio's writings imply, at least, if they do not state, the binding force of conscience and the su- premacy of moral law. In Plutarch, morality seems to be regarded rather from a utilitarian position, as a preserva- tive against folly and suffering. In determining Plutarch's application of his own views, his " Consolation," addressed to his wife, shows an approval of simplicity in dress as practised by her.79 His "Table Conversations" show that he aimed at something better than ordinary heathen cus- toms. Yet he seems inclined to expose error rather than earnestly to advocate moral truth. He was willing to ridicule the Jews80 and to dwell on Stoic inconsistencies.81 As the Stoics were the only body of heathens who as a class laid stress on morality, it arrests attention that a moralist should only find fault with them. Plutarch's tract on Superstition opens to us his state of 79 Plutarch, Consolatio ad Uxorem, 4 ; Opp. 8, p. 402, edit. Reiske. 80 The fourth book of Plutarch's Table Conversations is imperfect, breaking off apparently in the course of the fifth Conversation. The extant portion of this Conversation discusses the question why Jews abstain from pork ; whether, because of disgust towards swine, or, on the other hand, because of a religious veneration for them. The extant fragment adopts the latter of the two suppositions. Whether in the lost portion of it any speaker was represented as defending the opposite view is but a matter of surmise. Unless the extant misrepresentation were palliated by something now lost, it is very inexcusable. In the tract On Superstition (7, Opp. 6, pp. 646, 647, edit. Reiske), Plutarch illustrates his subject by the conduct of Jews who had permit- ted, during war, that enemies should capture their fortifications without resistance on the sabbath. The illustration, though a fair one, would probably have been avoided had the writer regarded Jewish morality as calling, in the main, for more acceptance than it received. 81 Plutarch devoted a special work to the Inconsistencies of the Stoics. T 306 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. mind. In it superstitious heathens are deservedly and unsparingly held up to ridicule.82 We can safely infer that the writer who does this belonged not to the class who were trembling for the fate of old institutions. On the other hand, we do not find him elucidating and defend- ing any set of views which commanded his unqualified assent. He merely contrasts superstition with atheism, and between the two extremes gives a preference to the latter. He assumes, however, without argument, though not without contradiction from himself, the benevolent character of any divine being,83 and, in so doing, places 82 "Of all fears the most incurable and helpless is superstition. The sea is no terror to him who sails not, nor war to him who is not engaged in it. The stayer at home fears not highwaymen, nor does the poor man dread sycophants, nor the private individual fear the envious. The dweller in Gaul is not afraid of earthquakes, nor in Ethiopia of thun- derbolts. But he who fears the gods, fears all things, — land, sea, air, heaven, darkness, light, sound, silence, dreams." — Plutarch, De Super- stitione, 3. "There is a law for slaves who give up the idea of freedom, that they may ask a sale and change their master for a juster one. But superstition grants no change of gods, nor is it possible to find a god without terror for him who fears those of his country and family, who shudders at saviors and benefactors ; trembling and afraid of those from whom we ask wealth, plenty, concord, peace, the direction of 'most prosperous words and works.' " — De Superstit. 4 ; Opp. 6, p. 635. "An altar is a [safe] refuge for a slave. Even by robbers many fanes are [deemed] inviolable ; and fugitives from enemies, if they can lay hold of an image or a temple, take courage. But the superstitious man shudders and fears before, and is alarmed by, the very things which give hope to others in their utmost dread. [No need] to drag a superstitious man from fanes. He suffers punishment and vengeance there. What need of many words ? Death is to all [in the sense of, to most] men the close of life. But to the superstitious man not even it [is the end]. He transcends these limits, creating to himself a fear of existence beyond, longer than this life, and attaching to death the thought of endless evils." — De Superstit. 4; Opp. 6, pp. 635, 636. "Others contend with misfortune, . . . but the superstitious man, saying to himself without prompting from any one, ' You suffer these things, 0 ill-starred man, through providence and the command of divine power,' throws away all hope." — De Superstit. 7; Opp. 6, p. 644. 83 "Atheism, being an incorrect decision, that nothing is blessed and § iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 307 himself in striking contrast to conservatism as manifested in Tacitus. His allusion to divine power as paternal is best explained by supposing that Monotheism had even imperishable, seems to cause absence of suffering by its lack of belief in anything divine ; and the result of believing that no gods exist is that you do not fear them. [On the other hand] its name [in Greek, ' demon- dread '] indicates superstition as a belief which causes suffering, and as the [prevalent] poetic conception of a fear which debases and crushes a man who believes that there are gods, and that these are mischievous and hurtful. . . . Ignorance has implanted in the one a disbelief of that which is benignant, but in the other has superadded an opinion that it harms [us]." — Plutarch, De Siqoerstit. 2, Opp. 6, pp. 629, 630. " What then ! Does not the condition of atheists as compared with the supersti- tious appear to you as having this advantage ? The former see no gods whatever; the latter believe their existence. The former pay them no attention ; the latter conceive as frightful what is benignant, as tyran- nical what is paternal, as noxious what is protective; and what is a/x[fjL7)Tov, inimitable [in perfection] they deem violent and savage. Then they are persuaded by brass-founders and stone-cutters and wax-moulders, that the bodies of the gods are like those of men ; and they form and dress up such things, and bow down before them." — De Superstit. 6; Opp. 6, p. 639. "Neither in the pleasures [of life] is [superstition] superior to atheism. Men take special pleasure in festivals, and sacred entertainments and initiations and orgies, and supplication of the gods and adorations. See then the atheist under such circumstances, laughing a mad and sardonic laughter at these proceedings, — and perhaps remarking quietly to his companions, that they are blinded and demented, who think that these things are a service of the gods, — but otherwise unblamable. The su- perstitious man [on the contrary] wishes, but is unable, to rejoice or take pleasure. The city is filled with sacrifices and paeans ; the soul of the superstitious man with groans. Crowned with a wreath, he turns pale ; sacrificing, he is in terror ; he prays in a quivering voice, and offers in- cense with trembling hands." — De Superstit. 8; Opp. 6, pp. 647, 648. " It is a matter of wonder to me that those who call atheism atrepeiav unbelief, do not call superstition the same. I would prefer that men should say of me, that I had never existed, that there was no Plutarch, rather than to say, that Plutarch is an unreliable, fickle man, prompt to anger, revengeful about ordinary occurrences, taking offence at trifles." — De Superstit. 9 ; Opp. 6, p. 648. "The atheist thinks that there are no gods. The superstitious man wishes that there were none. He believes unwillingly, for he fears death. . . . The atheist has no share in super- 308 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. in Europe influenced the less bigoted heathens.84 It may- be doubted, however, whether, in Plutarch's religious sys- tem, the ideas of responsibility to divine power and of quiet self-sacrifice held a prominent place. His tone would lead us to expect less of it in him than in Dio. Plutarch designates a class of heathens as atheists. I am unaware that this is done by any other heathen writer. In his time, or shortly afterwards, the term A-theists de- signated Christians. Was he indirectly defending Chris- tians against maltreatment ? He never ridicules them as he does Jews. His argument would favor Christians equally as other non-worshippers of the heathen deities. No class of heathen atheists were so placed as to call for defence. Christians were. If his work on Superstition were written during Nerva's reign,85 it could scarcely have been regarded by its readers otherwise than as making ground on which Christians could stand ; as palliating their non-recognition of the heathen deities. His work "Against the Stoics" may have been written under Trajan. Such degree of affinity between him and Christianity as the foregoing may imply is corroborated by Plutarch's position touching Homer. Concordance with the Ery- thraean verses as to Homer's falsehoods about the gods 86 had won for Dio the epithet of Unbeliever, or Monotheist,87 stition. But the superstitious man, who would prefer to be an atheist, is too weak to think as he would wish concerning the gods. The atheist, moreover, is not an accomplice of superstition, but superstition originated atheism and gives an apology, though not a correct nor praiseworthy one, for its existence." — Be Siqjerstit. 10, 11 ; Opp. 6, pp. 652, 653. 84 On the term, "Father Jupiter," in heathen writings, see remarks on page 52. 85 The tract on Superstition is, according to the present arrange- ment of Plutarch's works, followed by one " Apophthegmata," addressed to the Emperor Trajan. If the present arrangement corresponds with the order in which the different works were written, additional plausibility would be given to the supposition that the one on Superstition ap- peared during Nerva's reign. Its publication, if during conservative supremacy, would seem somewhat bold. m See Appendix, Note A, foot-note 62. 87 See Appendix, Note A, foot-note 63. § iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 309 Plutarch agrees with Dio and the monotheists, that gods did not join in the fight nor get beaten before Troy. He states : " The self-contradictions of the poets, by interfer- ing with credence, do not permit a strong tendency towards the injurious. When juxtaposition renders their incon- sistencies obvious, we must assent to what is most reason- able. . . . When absurdities are uttered, and not at once solved [in the sense of exposed], we must render them powerless by means of their opposites elsewhere stated, not being discontented, nor angry with the poet [himself], but [only] at statements made from habit or playfulness. Thus, if you please, [in answer] to the Homeric accounts of gods thrown "headlong by each other, and their being wounded by men and their variances and hatreds [quote] : — ' You can devise a better tale than this,' M and you do devise . . . and utter elsewhere the follow- ing, which is superior and better : — * . . . the quietly living gods.' w And ' There the blessed gods perpetually enjoy themselves.'90 And ' Thus the gods appoint for miserable mortals To live afflicted. But they themselves have no care.' n " For these are wholesome and true opinions, but the former are invented for the consternation of men." 92 In this last quotation from Homer, the indifference of the gods towards human happiness is striking. Plutarch's approval of it strengthens the conviction that heathen conservatives — whatever their repugnance for his teach- ings— would fear him less than the more earnest Dio. His expressed approval of such intense selfishness is ren- dered yet more strange by his immediately subjoining, " When Euripides says, ' With many a form of sophism the gods, Our superiors, mislead us/ 88 Iliad, 7, 358. 89 Iliad, 6, 138. w Odys. 6, 46. 91 Iliad, 24, 525, 526. 92 Plutarch, De audiendis Poetis, 4 ; Opp. Moral. 6, pp. 72, 73. 310 JUDAISM AT EOME. [CH. X. it is no mistake to add his better remark : — 1 If the gods do anything wrong, they are not gods.' " °3 Heathens who, with or without interest in monotheism, contemned their national religion, and the bigotry or self- interest of its defenders, must have listened with relish to Plutarch's skilful subversion of conservative positions by means of conservative authorities. 11. Tacitus, in regard to what was called religion, shared the narrow bigotry and inconsistency, and joined in asserting the debasing views of the class to which he belonged. He tells us his uncertainty as to whether human affairs were or were not the result of chance.94 Yet, in the face of this, he alleges human calamities to be unmis- takably the result of divine revenge,95 and is bitterly se- vere on Jewish irreligion because it paid no attention to the omens which were said to have preceded the fall of Jerusalem.96 A fair inference from his language is, that, in his opinion, if the Jews had attended to these omens and pacified the gods, their city might, or would, have escaped capture. The extent to which prejudice rendered him indifferent to truth is strikingly illustrated by his statements concerning the Jewish sanctuary. He narrates that Pompey entered it and found it empty,97 yet in de- 98 Plutarch, Be audiendis Poetis, 4 ; Opp. Moral, 6, p. 73. Compare on p. 4, extract from Plutarch, Adv. Stoic, c. 14. 94 Tacitus, An. 6, 22, quoted in Ch. II. note 6. 95 Tacitus, Hist. 1, 3, quoted in Ch. II. note 6. 95 u Prodigies had occurred which that race, enslaved to superstition, but opposed to religion, held it unlawful, either by vows or victims, to expiate. Embattled armies were seen rushing to the encounter, with burnished arms, and the Avhole Temple appeared to blaze with fire that flashed from the clouds. Suddenly the portals of the sanctuary were flung wide open, and a voice, in more than mortal accents, was heard to announce that the gods were going forth ; at the same time a prodigious bustle, as of persons taking their departure ; occurrences which few in- terpreted as indicative of impending woe." — Tacitus, Hist. 5, 13, Bonn's trans. 97 "Among Romans, Cneius Pompey first conquered the Jews, and by right of his victory entered their temple. Thereby was made known that §iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 311 fiance of this evidence, and in close proximity to it, he tells us, with other hard stories, that within this sanc- tuary the Jews had consecrated the head of an ass.98 Christians equally with Jews were subjects of his aver- sion and misrepresentation," — a pretty sure evidence that both divisions of monotheism were perceptibly gaining upon heathenism. In parting from Tacitus it is but just to say that he, like many another, may have supposed himself to believe some things which he did not. This, however, but par- tially excuses him, since, in such cases, the self-deception was largely his own fault. His tone is free from levity, and at times sombre even to depression.100 This may the scdem locality was empty, and their secret rites unmeaning, there being no effigy of gods within." — Tacitus, Hist. 5, 9. 98 Tacitus narrates {Hist. 5, 3) that when the Jews were perishing from thirst, Moses was guided to water by a herd of wild asses, after which he states, that the Jews "consecrated in their sanctuary an effigy of the animal under whose guidance they had escaped wandering and thirst." — Tacitus, Hist. 5, 4. This tale, with the addition that the ass-head was of gold, is among those by which Apion endeavored to cast ridicule on the Jews. Ac- cording to him (Josephus, Against Apion, 2, 7, 7) it was discovered in the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes (compare Ch. VIII. note 190), an account which Josephus treats as first fabricated either by Posidonius or Apollo- nius. In Plutarch's Symjjosiacon, 4, 5, 3 {Opp. 8, p. 665, ed. Reiske), one of the speakers introduces the same story. We shall find hereafter that a caricature of it found place in Hadrian's palace. From a passage in Tertullian's Apology, 16 (repeated in his Ad Nationcs, 1, ll), it would seem that Christians, or at least the violently semi-Jewish ones, were also taunted with worshipping the head of an ass. 93 See on p. 246, note 189. 100 There is, mingled with other emotions, a mournfulness, sincere or affected, in the tone wherewith Tacitus (Agric. 46) addresses his deceased father-in-law : "If, as wise men think, great minds are not extinguished with the body." It is not an ignorant and superstitious dread of phys- ical death, but the longing for continued existence of an intelligent man, who had but faint hope that even a few favored mortals were exempted from extinction. Only the idea of a superintending good being can afford reasonable hope of a future life. The prejudices of Tacitus clung 312 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. have been due to constitutional temperament, to personal surroundings, or to both. 12. The character of the younger Pliny was soiled by levity,101 and by some peculiarities of small minds, such as adulation 102 and cherishing a grudge.103 He was com- to a contentious, worthless rabble of deities in whose hands a thoughtful man would have been loath to trust his domestic animals, let alone the welfare of his children. ioi This shows itself, not only in the absence of any high standard of propriety, but by adoption and defence of its opposite. Pliny amused his leisure on one occasion by writing indecencies in poetry which he sent with a letter (4, 14) to a friend. Had the matter stopped here it might seem some momentary failing. From a later letter, however (5, 3), ad- dressed to a different person, it seems that Pliny must have recited these indecencies to others, and felt satisfaction that the individual to whom he was writing had communicated them with their author's name to friends under his roof. Some of these disapproved the composition and recital of such verses by Pliny. He defends himself by saying (§ 2), "I am A MAN," homo sum, and (§ 3) that other persons of standing had done the same. In yet another letter (7, 4), he speaks again of his efforts in this direction, which eventually were published. He says that he felt no regret for his publication, and treats its success (see note 106) as some- thing glorious for himself. Gibbon says of Pliny (in company with Thrasea, Helvidius, and Taci- tus), that "from Grecian philosophy they had imbibed the justest and most liberal notions of the dignity of human nature." — Decline and Fall, 3, Vol. 1, pp. 91, 92, Philada. edit. 1816. His words contrast strangely with Pliny's estimate of manhood. On the "liberal notions " inculcated by Greek philosophy, compare Appendix, Note K, § II. 12. 102 piiny's Panegyric on Trajan and his correspondence with that emperor are sufficient evidence of his adulatory tendencies. One of the titles used towards Domitian, that of "Lord," is constantly used by Pliny towards Trajan. 103 In some trial — not impossibly a political one — before the court of One Hundred, during Domitian's reign, Pliny, as counsel, quoted the opinion of Metius Modestus, then in banishment. Regulus, the oppos- ing counsel, availed himself of the mistake by asking Pliny (1, 5, § 5), " What do you think of Modestus ? " — a question somewhat dangerous to answer in any way which would favor his case. Pliny never forgave him. When a son of Regulus died, Pliny wrote a letter (4, 2) to ridicule the father's somewhat extravagant manifestations of grief, and, subse- §iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 313 petent to confound this latter tendency with the perform- ance of public duty.104 His self-esteem and love of approbation, moreover, seem to have been very strong 105 quently, devoted a second letter (4, 7) to the same object and to ridiculing him as an orator. After his death Pliny writes (6, 2, § 4) : " Regulus did well to die. He would have done yet better by dying sooner." 104 Pliny and some other of the senatorial leaders bore a personal grudge to Publicius Certus, the man who had arrested the younger Helvidius. During his absence from the Senate, Pliny introduced a motion intended to condemn his action, but cautiously forbearing at first to name him. Partly by a ruse of the consul, the motion was carried, and Pliny seems to have accepted as truthful the congratulations of senators, because "I had at last freed the Senate from the odium with which it was universally regarded by other classes, in that, while un- relenting towards others, it. by a mutual dissimulation, was forbearing solely to senators." — Pliny, Jun. 9, 13, § 21. Certus was perhaps on his death-bed when the motion was introduced ; see § 24 of same letter. 1 '5 Pliny, according to his own statement (5, 3), made it a habit to collect friends at his house and recite to them his own verses, studying meanwhile their faces and actions. " What each one thinks, he [the author] discovers from the countenance, the eyes, the motion of the head, or hand, from a murmur, or from silence." — 5, § 0. In § 8 of the same letter he mentions that " reverentia auditorum, the desire of approval from his auditors," incited a closer attention to his writings, qui recitat aliquanto acrius scriptis snis . . . intcndit. In Book 4, Epistle 19, Pliny narrates the excellences of his wife, which, as portrayed by her husband, consisted largely in admiration of himself. If he recited his productions, she took position behind some screen, where she listened (§ 3) with greedy ears to the praises of her husband, laudcsque nostras avidissimis auribus excipit. She sung his verses (§ 4) to the harp. If he had a cause to plead in the court of One Hundred, she arranged messengers who should bring her word (§ 3) as to the assensum, expressions of approval, and clam,ores, outbreaks of applause, which he elicited. In another epistle, — to which the editor has appropriately prefixed the heading, Vanitas vanitatum Pliniarum. Omnia in hac epistola vana sunt, Vanity of Plinian vanities. All things in this epistle are vanity, — Pliny begins : "It has frequently happened to me whilst plead- ing, that the court of One Hundred, after restraining themselves for a good while within the bounds of judicial dignity and gravity, would all suddenly rise and commence applauding, as if overcome and compelled 314 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. and not always discriminating.106 He was an ultra con- servative, or rather a reactionary, both in things divine and human. Despite the experience of others, he added one, or more, to existing temples ; 10~ and, despite the bet- ter feelings of mankind, he advocated brutalities.108 Even when acting in the interests of humanity and not improb- [thereto]. Frequently from [a meeting of] the Senate I have carried away the utmost fame which I could desire. Yet never was I so de- lighted as with a statement of Cornelius Tacitus. He narrated that at the last Circensian games a Roman knight sat with him ; that after a variety of literary conversation this man asked him, ' Are you an Italian or a Provincial ? ' He answered, ' You are already acquainted with me through my pursuits.' To this the other rejoined, 'Are you Tacitus or Pliny?' I cannot express how pleased I was." — Pliny, Jun. 9, 23, §§ 1-8. On applause in court, compare note 47. 106 "When Pliny's more judicious friends objected to his writing and reciting indecent verses, he replied, "The book is read, copied, even sung. And by Greeks, also, — whom a love for this little book has taught Latin, — it is sung to the lyre and harp. What [else] have I accom- plished equally glorious ?" — Pliny, Jun. 7, 4, §§ 9, 10. It is probable enough, that the applause bestowed on Pliny during his private readings was not always disinterested. Persons who wished his aid may have availed themselves of his foible. 107 Pliny mentions (Book 4, Epist. 1) the erection of a temple at his own expense, and, unless the one mentioned in Book 10, Epistle 24, be the same, he must have built two. Compare the experience of earlier conservatives in Ch. VIII. notes 28, 29. It would seem to have been forgotten. 108 A friend of Pliny named Maximus lost his wife and gave an expen- sive gladiatorial funeral. Pliny writes to him: "You did right. . . . You had a most dear and deserving wife, to whose memory was due some monument, or public exhibition, and this of a kind especially appropri- ate to a funeral. ... I could wish that the panthers, Africance, of which you had bought so many, could have arrived by the appointed day." — Pliny, Jun. 6, 34. If a man in cultivated society should, at the. present day, celebrate the death of an affectionate wife by hiving some prize- fighters to pound each other for public amusement, the shock to public feeling would be greater, but the brutality would be less than at a Roman gladiatorial funeral. Pliny, at one time, when influenced by some of the better-minded conservatives, was willing to take ground, though not very resolutely, against these exhibitions; see note 59. §iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 315 ably from benevolent motives, he seems unwilling, or ashamed, to plant himself on moral ground.109 This man was sent as proconsul to Bithynia under the following circumstances. That province, which in the days of Paul would seem to have been a stronghold of Judaism, had, in the days of Pliny, outgrown any belief in heathenism.110 A reactionary administration such as sur- rounded Trajan could not among the sincere and right- minded Bithynians have found men willing to profess what in their section of country had become even more a subject of ridicule than at Eome. If Eoman conser- vatives wished to put supporters of the old religion into power, they must have taken them from those who for the sake of office would become partisans of what they ridiculed in their hearts. The result of this would be maladministration and plundering of the public revenues, besides injustice and extortion towards individuals. To remedy such a state of things, Pliny was sent to Bi- thynia.111 He may have been financially honest, though 109 Afranius Dexter — a senator, doubtless — was found killed. Whether by his own hand or that of others was uncertain. His slaves had already been put to the torture. Pliny moved their acquittal. Another senator moved their banishment ; still another, their execution. These two latter and their adherents wished to be counted conjointly. Pliny insisted on a separate count of each party. Thereupon the advo- cates of capital punishment, seeing that the party for acquittal outnum- bered either of the others separately, joined themselves to the advocates of banishment. Pliny may have been largely prompted by a sense of justice and humanity. Yet these are ignored by him, and of his letter (8, l-l) giving an account of it, one half is a preamble and the other a discussion of parliamentary rules. 110 Pliny writes to Trajan: "It is sufficiently evident that the al- most deserted temples have begun again to be frequented, and the religious rites, long intermitted, to be revived, and in various locali- ties victims are bought, for which hitherto only an exceptional pur- chaser, rarissimus emptor, was found." — Pliny, Jun. 10, 97, 10. 111 Pliny, in his first letter after arriving in Bithynia, writes to Trajan : "Much [public] money is retained by private individuals, and some is applied to by no means legitimate expenses." — Pliny, Jun. 10, 28, 3. Trajan answers: "The provincials will, I trust, understand that I 316 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. our knowledge of his life is inadequate to warrant an affirmation to that effect. Among honest men, however, a more unfit one could hardly have been selected. We have already seen, in his dealing with Dio Chrysostom, that the simple cry, " Religion is in danger," rendered him incompetent to see through and adjust an ordinary business account. If, unknown to Trajan, some of the Bithynian plunderers had exercised an influence in hav- ing Pliny appointed, the instance would be but one of too many in which a political ring operates unseen by the public. Contractors, whose work had, by connivance, been over- measured,112 office-holders, who had appropriated public moneys, and others generally who were concerned in de- frauding the community, knew that Pliny had been sent to correct such abuses, and that his self-love would make him desire the reputation of having accomplished his mission. They needed, therefore, to divert his attention, and the cry which they raised concerning Christians effected, doubtless, their purpose. The province was, ac- cording to Pliny's statement, full of Christians belonging exercise forethought for them. . . . Your first duty will be to exact account of public matters, for it is plain enough that they are out of order." — Ibid. 10, 29, 2, 3. These letters are numbered in some editions 16 and 17. In another letter (10, 40) Pliny mentions that condemned criminals had not only escaped punishment, but been put into salaried offices. Trajan responds (10, 41) that Pliny had been sent to correct such abuses. The Bithynians had previously made more than one effort for self- protection. They had accused one of their proconsuls, named Bassus, of bribery and extortion (Pliny, Jun. 4, 9). Varenus, who aided them in this prosecution, may possibly have done so from interested motives. He became their proconsul, and was in his turn the subject of an accusa- tion (Pliny, Jun. 5, 20 ; 6, 13). In either case Pliny aided the accused, though his letters render their guilt probable. 112 Pliny asks Trajan (10, 28, 5) for a surveyor, or measurer, from Rome, to remeasure public works. The emperor replies (10, 29, 3) that he has hardly measurers enough for works in Rome and its vicinity. Some insight is afforded by this confession into the industrial condition of Rome. Op. (Ch. IV. n. 6) remark of Josephus on mechanical ails. §iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 317 to every rank and condition. An effort to extirpate them would of course give him plenty to do. Some accusa- tions, anonymous or otherwise, may have been prompted by a wish of delinquents to put out of the way testimony which could not be rebutted. Other accusations, after the persecution commenced, may have been the result of private grudge. None of them, if we consider the absence of belief in heathenism (see note 110), can have proceeded from religious motives. The degree to which Pliny and Trajan were influenced by reverence for the heathen deities receives some illus- tration from the fact that two questions addressed by the former to the latter received contradictory answers,113 and is also evinced by Pliny's praise of his uncle,114 a decided atheist.115 Pliny states, with no intimation of doubt as to its cor- rectness, the alleged object of the Christians, that they bound themselves to rectitude of life ; and then proceeds to term their association " a depraved and extravagant superstition," supcrstilionem pravam et immodicam,m The remark, in such a connection, sounds like utter block- headism. Yet the main object of Pliny's letter may have been, and not improbably was, to obtain imperial indorse- ment for avoidance of further persecution. His natural feelings, aided doubtless by expressions of indignation from the better portion of the community, were likely to cause hesitation in the work wherein treasury delinquents 113 In letters 58, 75, of Book 10, we have Pliny's propositions, and in letters 59, 76, Ave have Trajan's answers. According to these latter it appears that ground dedicated to the "Mother of the Gods" must not interfere with city improvements, but ground dedicated to " Claudius," the deified emperor, could not be diverted from sacred uses. The former of these decisions is accompanied by a statement, that the soil of a for- eign city did not admit a dedication which would be binding by Roman law. The latter decision assumes the reverse. Provincials would natu- rally infer that a deified emperor was more to be revered than the "Mother of the Gods." "* See letter of Pliny, Jun. 6, 16. i15 Pliny, Sen. Nat. Hist. 2, 5, 4. n* Pliny, Jun. 10, 97, 7, 8. 318 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. and others had involved him. His meaning might be paraphrased thus : " I should like to escape from this predicament, and will therefore explain to the emperor that the men do no wrong. I should dislike to be thought an untrue patrician, and will therefore call them some opprobrious names." 13. In connection with Pliny's letter concerning Chris- tians, two questions naturally present themselves. Pliny speaks of Christians as being denounced to him, but he does not mention any other class of monotheists. If the accusation had come from Jews, this would need no expla- nation, since they would not have accused their own con- verts. There is, however, no reason to think that Jews were connected with it. The question therefore arises, Were Christians the only Gentile monotheists in Bithy- nia ? And, if so, what caused a difference, in this respect, between that province and Piome ? At Eome we have seen that, conjointly with Christians, other monotheists were expelled.117 Juvenal also mentions conversions to Juda- ism.118 If this difference between Eome and Bithynia really existed, there seems but one plausible explanation of it. At Rome the aristocracy had cultivated a factitious reverence for antiquity. This reverence might incline many Gentiles towards Judaism, rather than towards Christianity, on the ground that the former religion was sanctioned by its antiquity. In Bithynia, if no such fac- titious reverence existed, Christian customs would have 117 See notes 29, 44. 118 " Some — children of a father, who has an awe for sabbaths — Adore nothing but clouds and the divinity of heaven. They think swine's flesh [for food] on a par with human. Their father did not touch it. After while they circumcise themselves. Accustomed to contemn Roman laws, They learn, observe, and feel an awe for Jewish legislation, For whatever Moses handed down in his secret volume : — Not to show the way, save to one of the same faith, To lead only circumcised to the desired fountain. His father is responsible ; to whom each seventh day Was idle, and disconnected from life's interests." Juvenal, Sat. 14, 96 - 106. § iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 319 presented to a Gentile fewer objections than Jewish ones, whilst the teachings of Christianity would at least have proved equally acceptable with those of Judaism. It deserves note that a Roman consul, Flavius Clemens, a relative of Domitian, should have been executed in A. D. 95, on a charge of atheism. At a somewhat later date this would unquestionably have meant that he was a Christian.119 It perhaps meant so now. 14. A second question arises touching the name " Chris- tian." In Asia we have several instances of its use.120 In Europe, as we learn from Tacitus, the common people used the same term.121 Among other classes the terms A-theist, Unbeliever, or Galilean 122 seem to have pre- vailed. The only two instances in Europe where the word " Christian " is either used, or its use implied, are cases in which an accusation was probably made by Jews.123 The data are too meagre for the formation of a certain opinion. Yet they favor the supposition that where Jews were most numerous, and the expectation of a Christ most familiar, the term " Christian " was more generally used than in other localities. 119 See Appendix, Note B, § II. 2. 120 Besides Pliny's letter to Trajan, 10, 97, see Acts of the Apostles 11, 26 ; 26, 28 ; and 1 Peter 4, 16. 121 Quos . . . vulgus Christianos adpellabat, "Those whom the com- mon people called Christians." — Tac. An. 15, 44. 122 See quotations from Dio Cassius and Justin Martyr in Appendix, Note B, foot-notes 52, 53, 54. Epictetus, In Disscrtat. 4, 7, 6, uses the term "Galileans." At a date when the term "Christians" must already have been familiar to European Jews, that is, about a. p. 60, we find, even in Asia, that in speaking to a Roman governor, the epithet "Nazarene" is adopted. Paul is called (Acts 24, 5) "a leader of the party of the Naza- renes," though in the same city two years later a Jewish monarch, in ad- dressing Paul (Acts 26, 28), uses the term "Christian." The Martyrdom of Polycarp evinces (cc. 3, 9) the term "A-theist" to have been in use also at Smyrna in Asia. 123 See page 229, also note 189 of Chapter VIII. 320 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. §v. A. D. 98-117. Trajan. Part of Trajan's reign has been treated under the pre- ceding section. Pliny, in his already-mentioned letter to Trajan, says: "I have never been present at examinations concerning Christians." This may either have referred to examinations prior to Trajan's reign, or during it. If the latter be Pliny's meaning, it implies that the Christians had already, before he went to Bithynia, suffered in some localities because the reactionary tendencies of Trajan's court had failed to protect them. Eusebius, who wrote two centuries later, mentions that local persecutions oc- curred under Trajan,124 but we cannot from his narrative infer their number, extent, or chronological order. Hege- sippus, an earlier writer whom he quotes, places the mar- tyrdom of Simeon about A. D. 116. If so, it probably took place during the Jewish troubles near the close of Trajan's reign. The " Martyrdom of Ignatius " is an unreliable document, written probably as a means of giving currency to the epistles forged in his name. Its fabrication, how- ever, renders probable the existence of some tradition that Ignatius had been martyred in Trajan's time. Several collisions occurred in Trajan's reign between Jews and Gentiles, or between Jews and the imperial 124 Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 3, 32. The tendency of Trajan's reign favored patricianism perhaps to a greater extent than his judgment or inclination warranted. A coin of Trajan (Oros. 7, 11, note) states by word and em- blem that sacrifice of oxen should render Rome eternal. Pliny lauds him (Pancgyr. 42, 2) because "slaves have been taught their duty. They fear, obe}T, and have masters." Yet Pliny's letter (3, 14) on the murder of a brutal slaveholder by his slaves, indicates the result, in this direction, of patrician tendencies. Pliny lauds Trajan {Pancgyr. 36, ]) because the treasury was no longer guarded. The financial and official condition of Bithjmia as described by himself is a comment on similar neglect there. Pliny, in consulting Trajan (Epist. 10, 71 ; al. 6Q) touching one whom Trajan's answer (10, 72 ; al. 67) treats as lawlessly enslaved, mentions, among cited authorities, the "god" Augustus, the "god" Vespasian, the "god " Titus, but it is noteworthy that a decision of Domitian out- weighed with Trajan the divine ones. §v.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 98-117. 321 forces. The scanty records left us throw little light on the cause of these collisions. The reactionary influences which marked the reign of Trajan render not improbable that already in his time the law of Domitian and Nerva, which forbade making eunuchs, had been misapplied as a prohibition to Jews of their national rite. In the year 115, Antioch, in Syria, had the unenviable honor of a residence within its walls by Trajan and his court. The city was full of soldiery and embassies, and overrun with hangers-on and with adventurers from every quarter of the earth. Suddenly a long-continued earth- quake shook the city to its foundations, and amidst the crash of buildings, the fearful loss of life, and the man- gling of human limbs, Trajan, with slight injury, was helped through a window and escaped to open ground. Pedo, the consul, was killed. Trees were, according to Dio Cassius, uprooted by the earthquake's violence.125 A rebellion of Jews in Cyrene and Egypt and the island of Cyprus followed soon afterwards; The earthquake may have been regarded as a manifestation of divine in- dignation towards the head of heathenism, or the rebel- lion may have been due to Eoman acts of oppression. Of the brutalities which Dio Cassius attributes to the Jews during this revolt, some are such obvious fabrica- tions that their currency among heathens implies stupid or vindictive credulity.126 Others may be exaggerations 125 Dio Cassius narrates the earthquake and its attendant circumstances in Book 68, chapters 24, 25. 126 "Meanwhile [after the Antioch earthquake] the Jews of Cyrene, putting at their head a certain Andrew, killed the Romans and Greeks, fed on their flesh, distributed (?) their entrails, anointed themselves with their blood, and clothed themselves with their skins. They sawed many in two from their head downwards; others they gave to wild beasts; others they compelled to fight [mortal] duels ; so that two hundred and twenty thousand in all were destroyed. In Egypt they did many similar things, and in Cyprus under the lead of Artemion. Two hundred and forty thousand were put to death there. And on this account it is not lawful for a Jew to land in Cyprus ; but if any one forced by the wind is driven upon the island, he is put to death. Lucius, sent by Trajan, and also other generals, subdued the Jews." — Dio Cass. 68, 32. Before 14* u 322 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. of actual facts. The number alleged to have perished needs, doubtless, as in most ancient narratives, a very great reduction to render it truthful.127 Eusebius records this revolt under Trajan without as- cribing barbarities to the Jews.128 He wrote at a date deciding as to the truthfulness or absurdity of the foregoing, the reader will do well to compare note 190 of Chapter VIII. and also the following extract concerning a revolt, during our own time, in the island of Cuba: "La Integridad National, a newspaper published in Madrid, recently contained a series of foul slanders against Francis Sanvalle, the celebrated naturalist, and owner of the Regla Slating Foundry. The slanders were that Sanvalle was an insurgent general, that he had as- sassinated eleven Spaniards, that he then caused a hre of fagots to be built, on which were placed the bodies of his victims, and that, when the torch was applied, himself and his band danced around the blazing mass. Sanvalle is incapable of such barbarities. He is an American who is far advanced in years, devoted to his science, and has never meddled in the revolution. Throughout the island he is much respected because of his accomplishments, and has a high standing in social and scientific circles. " — New York Semi-Weekly Tribune, December 2, 1870. 127 Csesar, even, who has been thought to avoid exaggeration, states {Bell. Gal. 1, -29) the number of his enemies — men, women, and chil- dren — at three hundred and sixty-eight thousand ; and in another place {Bell. Gal. 7, 76), at two hundred and forty-eight thousand. Half such a number aggregated in one neighborhood, with nothing but ancient means of transportation, would seem likely to have starved. 128 « -phg condition of Christianity, and of the [Christian] assembly, flourishing more and more daily, made progress, whilst Jewish misfor- tune, owing to evil upon evil, was at its height. Early in the emperor's eighteenth year [a. d. 115] a commotion of Jews again taking place caused destruction to a great multitude of them. In Alexandria and the remainder of Egypt and also in Cyrene, being inflamed as if by some fearful revolutionary spirit, they rushed into revolt against their fellow- residents, the Greeks ; and by adding greatly to the revolt, they com- menced in the following year a war of no small proportions, Lupus being then in command in Egypt. In the first contest they happened to get the better of the Greeks, who flying into Alexandria seized and killed the Jews in that city. " The Cyrenian [Jews], with no aid from these [Egyptian] ones, steadily plundered Egyptian territory and overthrew its laws, under the lead of Lucuas ; against whom the emperor sent Marcius Turbo with a foot and §v.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 98-117. 323 when no friendly feeling existed between them and Chris- tians, nor is there any reason for supposing that such feeling influenced his recital. He tells us, moreover, that he was but copying verbally from heathen records. This causes additional distrust of the atrocities mentioned by the credulous and prejudiced Dio. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, or the records quoted by it, make no mention of the revolt in Cyprus. His Chronicon, both in the original and in Jerome's trans- lation, specifies Salamis, a single city of the island, as being destroyed and its inhabitants killed by the Jews. A natural inference is, that the other cities and towns of the island were not so treated. The discord of a seaport population may have made it an exception to the course of things elsewhere. The destruction, or expulsion, of the Mesopotamian Jews, mentioned by Eusebius, was perhaps a military measure connected with Trajan's expedition in that direc- tion, and the fear of their attacking their neighbors may have been a fiction to justify the intended procedure. There is extant a Sibylline passage which may have owed its origin to the events of Trajan's latter years,129 naval force and also with cavalry. He, carrying the war against them through, with many battles during a considerable period of time, de- stroyed many myriads, not only of Cyrenian but also of Egyptian Jews who had joined their king Lucuas. " The emperor, suspecting that the Jews in Mesopotamia were about to attack the inhabitants there, commanded Lucius Cyetus (or Quietus) to clear them from that eparchy. He, drawing together an army, murdered a large number of them, upon which success he was appointed, by the emperor, governor of Judaea. "Greek [that is, Gentile] writers of that date have narrated these matters in the same words." — Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 4, 2. 129 " There shall be at some future time a dry sea, Ships shall no longer sail to Italy. Asia then shall be the all-carrying water ; And the plain of Crete as also Cyprus shall suffer much. And Paphos shall bewail a terrible fate, so that [even] The much-suffering city of Salamis shall gaze at her." Sibyl. Orac. 5, 447-452. In Book 4, line 128, the destruction conjointly of Salamis and Paphos 324 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. though this is not certain. If another passage in the note belong to the same period, there must have been Jews who were thinking more of Egypt's conversion than of her destruction.130 by an earthquake is mentioned. In that connection it belongs apparently to Nero's time. 130 Sibylline verses prior to the middle of the first century seem to have been written exclusively for the Roman or Italian market; see Appendix, Note A, § v. 3. It is doubtful even whether the same remark does not hold good concerning them until about the close of that century. If these verses were intended to operate at Rome, they may date before the Christian era. If they were intended to operate in Egypt, they probably belong to the close of Trajan's reign, or the earlier years of Hadrian's. " Isis, thrice-wretched goddess, thou shalt remain solitary by the Nile's water ; A disorderly madwoman on the sands of Acheron. No longer in the whole earth shall remembrance of thee remain. And thou, Serapis, on a bed of stones shalt suffer distress. Thou shalt lie, the greatest ruin in thrice-wretched Egypt. All who led the desires of Egypt towards thee Shall bewail thee bitterly. But such as put immortal understanding in their minds, As many as earnestly hymn God, shall recognize thee as nothing. And some one of the priests, a linen-robed man, will say : ' Come, let us set apart a truly beautiful spot for God. Come, let us change the horrible law of our ancestors, Because of which they made feasts and processions Senselessly to stone and earthenware gods. Let us turn our hearts and earnestly hymn the immortal God, The Originator, who has eternally existed, The true Director of all things, their King, The life-sustaining Originator, the Great God, who endures forever. And then in Egypt shall a mighty temple be pure, And into it a God-begotten people shall bring sacrifices, And God will grant them to live immortally.' " Sibyl. Orac. 5, 4S4 - 503. The mention of a future temple other than that at Jerusalem is equally remarkable, whether we suppose these lines to have been written before or after the capture of Jerusalem by Titus. §vi.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 117-138. 325 § vi. A. D. 117 - 138. Hadrian. Some remnants of the Jewish rebellion against Trajan may have been suppressed in the first years of Hadrian. The point, however, of most interest in his reign was a revolt about A. D. 130. Smith's Chronological Table, ap- pended to his Biographical Dictionary, represents this latter rebellion as commencing in A. D. 131 and ending in A. D. 136. The data for determining its history are in- sufficient. The article on Hadrian in the same Biograph- ical Dictionary places the beginning of the war (Vol. 2, p. 321, col. 2) about the commencement of A. D. 132, and fixes upon the year 134 (Vol. 2, p. 322, col. 1) as the date when Jerusalem had been subdued, and its rebuilding as a Koman colony had been superintended by Hadrian. Fur- ther, Hadrian's life by Spartianus places the commence- ment of the rebellion isi earlier than the death of Hadrian's favorite, Antinous, which latter event is, by the before- mentioned article on Hadrian, placed about A. D. 130. The Chronicon of Eusebius places the breaking out of the re- bellion in Hadrian's sixteenth year, that is, in A. D. 132. We may safely conclude that the rebellion began with- in a year or two before or after A. D. 130. Five years would be short enough allowance for its duration, if we judge, not by the scanty direct mention of it, but by the influence which it exercised on the whole second century. Spartianus states that circumcision was forbidden to the Jews, and that this prohibition originated the rebellion.132 Dio Cassius says that it was caused by Hadrian's location of a Koman colony on the ruins of Jerusalem, and his erection of a temple to Jupiter where the Jewish one had 181 Spartianus, Hadrian, 13, in Scriptores Historic Augustas, p. 12. 132 « <■ Moverunt ea tempcstate et Judai helium, quod vetabantur mutilate genitalia." — Spartianus, Hadrian, 13; Script. Hist. August, p. 12. Edicts of Domitian and Nerva (see notes 40, 45) against making eunuchs, probably used the term mutilate genitalia, which patrician judges could misapply against Jews. Hadrian, after executing patrician conspirators in a. d. 118, deemed, see Ch. VI. note 34, a gross reactionary folly ad- visable, and may from policy have failed to protect Jews. 326 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. stood.133 Probably the decree, or the misapplication of it, mentioned by Spartianus, originated, and the facts men- tioned by Dio gave a new impulse to, the war. 133 " When he (Hadrian) built on the ruins of Jerusalem a city, which he called iElia Capitolina, and erected on the site of [their] God's temple another to Jupiter, a war was excited which proved of no small dimensions nor short duration. For the Jews, treating it as something horrible that other races should be colonized in their city, and that the sacred rites of foreigners should be established in it, forbore action whilst Hadrian was present in iEgypt and afterwards in Syria. But, so far as possible, they purposely made the arms required from them of an inferior kind, that, on their condemnation, they themselves might have the use of them. When [Hadrian] was gone, they openly revolted. They did not venture in open battle any desperate attempt against the Romans. But they oc- cupied suitable localities, and strengthened them by underground passages and walls, that they might have places of refuge when overcome, and might [have room to] pass each other unseen beneath the ground. Holes were bored upwards to admit air and light. "At first the Romans in talking made light of them. But when all Judsea was in commotion, and the Jews were everywhere in disturbance and holding meetings, and had done much mischief to the Romans both privately and publicly, and when many of other races had from the desire of gain [?] assisted them, and all the inhabited world, thus to speak, was in commotion, then Hadrian sent against them his best com- manders, of whom the most prominent was Julius Severus. He was despatched against the Jews from Britain, which he governed. "He at first nowhere ventured a conflict with his opponents, because of their number and desperation, but by taking them singly [that is, in small bodies] with a multitude of [his own] soldiers and officers, and cut- ting off their provisions and shutting them up, he was enabled, more slowly, indeed, but with less danger, to crush, wear out, and cut them off. But few, therefore, altogether escaped. Fifty of their most con- siderable strongholds and nine hundred and eighty-five of their most noted villages were thoroughly destroyed, and five hundred and eighty thousand men were killed by onslaughts and in battles. The number destroyed by hunger, disease, and fire could not be ascertained. All Judsea, with slight exception, was rendered a desert, as already before the war had been foreshown to them [the Jews]. For the sepulchre of Solo- mon, which they regard as one of their sacred structures, went to pieces of its own accord and fell ; also many wolves and hyenas made forays, howling, into their cities. But many also of the Romans perished in §vi.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 117 - 138. 327 The contest, so far as carried on outside of Judaea, must have had one peculiarity of a civil war. It was not a conflict between contiguous or remote nations, but be- tween neighbors. Further, the moral and religious influ- ence of the Jews was likely, in the outset of the contest, to give them many friends and sympathizers among such heathens as could appreciate Tightness of life. This sym- pathy must have been increased by the obvious denial of a long-recognized religious liberty, and by the inten- tional insult to Jewish feeling in the erection of a temple to Jupiter at Jerusalem when Jupiter himself had, among nearly all intelligent heathens, become obsolete, save as a means of tormenting Jews and Christians. Some hea- thens may, as Dio Cassius says, have aided the Jews from love of gain, but it is probable that others from a sense of justice gave them support, and that still others, who refrained from supporting, gave them, from motives of justice or humanity, protection. In some localities each man's hand must have been against his neighbor.134 this war. Wherefore Hadrian, when he wrote to the Senate, did not use the preface customary from emperors : ' If you and your children are in health, it is well. I and the armies are in health.' " He sent Severus [after the war] into Bithynia, which had no need of arms, but of a just and wise ruler and presiding officer who had resolu- tion ; all which qualifications belonged to Severus. And [Severus] so conducted and administered private and public matters, that even to the present time mention is constantly made of him. But to the Senate and to the lot Pamphylia was conceded instead of Bithynia." — Dio Cass. 69, 12-14. This last remark implies, apparently, that the senators considered it their special privilege to plunder Bithynia and supply their friends with offices at its expense. They had to be indemnified with another province. 134 The book found in the Apocrypha of the Old Testament under the title of 2d Esdras was written (see Appendix, Note E) in the time of Hadrian. Some of its passages have much that is apposite to a state of things which we could infer without it. The following extract is from the common version, except verse 26, for which I have substituted the corresponding verses (4, 30, 31) in Laurence's translation from the Ethiopic. " And suddenly shall the sown places appear unsown, the full store- 328 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. In the Second Book of Esdras are found questionings 135 houses shall suddenly be found empty, and the trumpet shall give a sound, which when every man heareth they shall be suddenly afraid [or startled]. At that time shall friends fight, one against another, like enemies, and the earth shall stand in fear, with those that dwell therein, the springs of the fountains shall stand still, and in three hours [Ethiopic, "three years"] they shall not run. "Whosoever remaineth, from all these things that I have told thee, shall escape and see my salvation at the end of your [Ethiopic, " the"] world. In that day they shall behold those men [Enoch and Elijah] who have ascended [into heaven] without tasting death from their birth. "The hearts of those who dwell in the world shall be changed, and another heart be given to them. For evil shall be put out and deceit shall be quenched. As for faith, it shall flourish, corruption shall be overcome, and the truth which hath been so long without fruit shall be declared." 2 Esdras, 6, 22-2S ; Laurence's trans. 4, 25-32. A similar reference to this conflict of neighbors exists in the preceding chapter. It is here given in the translation of Laurence: "Friends opposed to friends shall destroy each other. Wisdom shall in that day be concealed and understanding be withdrawn to her secret resi- dence ; while many shall seek but shall not find her ; and iniquity and folly shall be multiplied on the earth." — 2 Esdras, 3, 14, 15 ; correspond- ing to the common version, 5, 9, 10. In yet another passage these conflicts are represented as uncontrolled by military or civil authority. "Woe to the world and them that dwell therein, . . . for there shall be sedition among men and invading one another. They shall not regard their kings nor princes [i. e. their leaders! and the course of their actions shall stand in their [own] power. A man shall desire to go into a city and shall not be able. ... A man shall have no pity upon his neighbor, but shall destroy their houses with the sword, and spoil their goods because of the lack of bread and for great tribulation. " — 2 Esdras, 15, 14 - 19. The two concluding chapters, of which this extract forms a part, are not found in the Ethiopic nor Arabic. The destitution, mentioned in verse 19, would necessarily be more severe at the close than at the beginning of the war. 135 "Are their deeds, then, any better which inhabit Babylon, that they should therefore have the dominion over Sion ? ... Is there any other people that knoweth thee besides Israel ? Or what race hath so believed thy covenants as Jacob ? And yet their reward appeareth not and their labor hath no fruit : for I have gone here and therethrough the heathen, and I see that they flow in wealth, and think not upon thy command- §vi.]/ CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 117-138. 329 and hopes,136 such as were not unnatural in a Jewish mind after the terrible struggle. The edict, or misappli- cation of law, against circumcision, must either have been repealed, or, which is more probable, allowed to sleep, for the Jews retained their rite in the second cen- tury as ever since. Hadrian may have found that the cost of executing it would be too much. The bitterness which grew up during the prolonged conflict can be in- ferred from passages of 2 Esdras,137 but can best be judged by its effects. To these we will attend in the next chapter. The Psalms of Solomon contain allusions which iden- tify them, or a portion of them, as belonging to the pres- ent period.138 They throw some, though but little, light upon it. ments. Weigh thou, therefore, our wickedness in the balance, and theirs also that dwell in the world ; and so shall thy name nowhere be found but in Israel. Or when was it that they which dwell upon the earth have not sinned in thy sight ? Or what people hath so kept thy command- ments ? Thou shalt find that Israel by name hath kept thy precepts ; but not the heathen. ... It was not my mind to be curious of the high things, but of such as pass by us daily, namely, wherefore Israel is given up as a reproach to the heathen, and for what cause the people whom thou hast loved is given over unto ungodly nations, and why the law of our forefathers is brought to nought, and the written covenants come to none effect." — 2 Esdras, 3, 28, 32-36 ; 4, 23. 136 See extracts from 2 Esdras on pp. 131-134. 137 See the mention of Jewish suffering quoted on page 131 in note 38, from Laurence's translation of Ezra, 10, 32-34 (Lat. vers. 10, 22). 138 The Psalms of Solomon are published in Fabricius, Codex Pseudc- pigraphus Veteris Testamenti, 1, pp. 917-972. One of them attributes the sufferings of the Jews to their sins : " They have omitted no sin which they have not perpetrated even more than the Gentiles. Therefore God . . . brought the Hardstriker from the ends of the earth." — Ps. 8, 14-16. The allusion is, doubtless, to Julius Severus, brought from Bri- tain to put down the Jews. In another Psalm it is said : "The blast has desolated our land of its inhabitants. It has carried off together the young man and the old, and their children, . . . and all things which were done in Jerusalem as the Gentiles do in their cities to their gods." — Ps. 17, 13 and 16. These passages compared with each other seem to attribute the mis- § 330 * JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. XI. CHAPTER XI. EFFECTS OF THE JEWISH REVOLT UNDER HADRIAN. § I. Direct Effects. In enumerating the direct and indirect effects of this Jewish revolt, we shall pass over such matters as the exhumed picture belonging to Hadrian's time,1 and con- fortunes of Jerusalem and Judtea to the fact that a portion of the Jews fraternized with and imitated heathens, and God was determined to have no half-way worshippers. Not impossibly such men are alluded to in Ps. 4, verse 7, as " living hypocritically with the righteous," and in verse 8 as " man-please rs," and inverse 10 as "a man-pleaser, who utters the Law deceitfully." The probable explanation of this is, that Jews of the ultra conservative stamp at Jerusalem had, whilst the war was in embryo, endeavored, by extra complaisance towards heathenism, to avert the storm. Some may, equally with Herod in the times of Augustus or Herod Agrippa in the reign of Claudius, have been willing to half-heathenize themselves. Of this class were those who endeavored to throw the blame of any commo- tion upon the Christians. The reader will find, under Note B of the Ap- pendix, in foot-note 53, a message from Jews, certainly of this class, which, whether it belong to the times of Trajan or Hadrian, would seem super- fluous, unless there were a desire to exonerate themselves at the expense of Christians. 1 In the Cleveland Daily Herald for March 31, 1860, is a commu- nication founded on, or copied from, a letter of Lewis Cass, Jr. It states that on the Palatine Hill, among ruins of the "House of Gold of the Caesars," had been found, scratched on a wall, a picture of a crucified human figure with an ass-head. To the left is a man with one hand raised, and below is the inscription, "Alexander adores God." Merivale, in his History of the Romans (Vol. 6, p. 442, note 1), copies from the Dublin Review for March, 1857, essentially the same ac- count, but with the subscription, ' AXe^d/mevos ai^erai. deov, " Alexamenus recognizes (or reverences) God," and says that it was exhumed on the Aventine Hill. The former article says, that the chamber containing the picture, and § I.] EFFECTS OF JEWISH REVOLT UNDER HADRIAN. 331 fine ourselves to such as affected society or literature. To do this, we again interrupt the chronological narrative. 1. GNOSTICS, OR ANTI-JEWISH CHRISTIANS. First on our list stand The Gnostics, two bodies of Christians strikingly unlike each other, who sprung into existence during or immediately after the war.2 They held in common this prominent and distinguishing view, The God of the Jews is not the God of Christians, but a different and less perfect being.3 They lasted until sur- that portion of the palace to which it belongs, were ' ' built by Hadrian, as the bricks, of which it is chiefly composed, attest. They are impressed with the names and titles of the consuls Pactinus and Apronicanus [Psetinus and Apronianus, a. d. 123]." If so, the picture is probably some sarcasm on a Jew, or on the Jews. Crucifixion of their leaders, or of themselves, may have suggested a representation of their alleged god (see Ch. X. note 98) as having been crucified. 2 Historical evidence places their origin in the time of Hadrian. The war is the only occurrence during his reign which can account for them. Clement of Alexandria says: "In the times of the Emperor Hadrian appeared those who devised heresies, and they continued until the age of the elder Antoninus." — Clem. Alex. Strom. 7, § 106, p. 898. Clement enumerates Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion as contemporaries. Ter- tullian states {Adv. Marc. 1, 19) that Marcion came from Pontus to Rome in the reign of the elder Antoninus, though he does not know in what year. Elsewhere (Dc Prescriptione Hccreticorum, 30) he says that Mar- cion and Valentinus belonged to the time of Antoninus. Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3, 4, 3) seems to imply that Valentinus came to Ptome before the time of Antoninus Pius, in whose reign he became prominent. These men were most prominent, therefore, in the reign which began immediately after the war closed. Samuel, the Armenian chronologist, places Valentinus and Cerdo, a Marcionite, about four years before Hadrian's death. Cerdo came to Rome before Marcion. The Chronicon of Eusebius places Basilides about the same time, and the close of the war a year or two later. 3 Mr. Norton, in his work on the Genuineness of the Gospels, Vol. 2 pp. 24-28 (first edition), has collected evidence of the above statements. From his work (pp. 27, 28) the following is copied: — " 'I will endeavor,' says Origen (Ajnid Pamphili Mart. Apolog. pro Origene; in Origen. Opp. 4, Append, p. 22), 'to define who is a heretic. 332 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. XL vivors of the struggle, with the recollection of its bit- terness, had passed away, and then they died out. No satisfactory explanation of their existence can be offered, except that they were the result of the war. It is impos- sible that their origin was due to any literary influence, since their mental tendencies were extremely divergent. They could not have originated in any merely local influ- ence, since they sprung up in widely separated localities. To appreciate this let the reader imagine to himself one class — the Yalentinians, from Alexandria in Egypt — as extravagant idealists, whose peculiarities of language were such as not to admit translation into our or into any other tongue ; men who invented a fanciful phraseology, using the same word in two or more senses, thereby con- cealing their inconsistencies from themselves and from such others as pretended to understand them. Let him next imagine another class — the Marcionites from Pon- tus of Asia Minor — as plain even to bluntness in their speech and as accommodating their teachings to the sim- plest minds. The Valentinians, in reconciling the Gospels with their system, escaped difficulties partly by ignoring them and partly by spiritual interpretation of the passages, that is, by ascribing to them meanings not suggested by the con- text, nor perhaps by anything else save the interpreter's fancy. Marcion felt bound to face difficulties, even at the cost of forced interpretation and the pruning-knife.4 All who profess to believe in Christ, and yet affirm that there is one God of the Law and the Prophets, and another of the Gospels, and maintain that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ was not he who was proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets, but another, I know not what, God, wholly unknown and unheard of, — all such we consider as heretics, however they may set off their doctrines with different fictions. Such are the followers of Marcion, and Valentinus, and Basilides.' ' 4 A word of explanation must precede Marcion's doings and interpre- tations, so that readers unfamiliar with Gnosticism may see their object. He, in common with the other branch of Gnostics, believed matter to be evil. He could not, therefore, ascribe to Jesus a physical body, without ascribing to this portion of him imperfection. Instead of building up, as did the other branch of Gnostics, a fanciful explanation, he cut away §i.] EFFECTS OF JEWISH REVOLT UNDER HADRIAN. 333 The Valentinians, though vising all four Gospels, seem to have made most use of John's. Marcion assumed that the earlier years of our Saviour's history and began nearly as follows : " In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, Christ Jesus, a saving spirit, deigned (?) to descend from heaven (Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 1, 19) into Capernaum, a city of Galilee." — Tertull. Adv. Marc. 4, 7. In an omitted portion of this last passage dcum is sometimes incorrectly substituted for cum, which would make the two passages conflict. In accordance with the above, the words recorded by Matthew 12, 48, "Who is my mother ? and who are my brethren?" were, by Marcion, in- terpreted as meaning, I have no parents, " I was not born." — Tertull. Adv. Marc. 4, 19. In Luke 22, 70, "All [the chief priests and scribes] said, 'You are, therefore, the Son of God,' " that is, the Messiah whom OUR God is to send. The answer of Jesus, "Ye say that I am," was interpreted by Marcion (Tertull. Adv. Marc. 4, 41 ) as meaning, "/have not said so." Marcion, it may be remarked, believed that the Jewish Deity would yet send His Messiah to his peculiar people. The voice from heaven (Luke 9, 35), " This is my beloved son, hear him," meant, according to Marcion (Tertull. Adv. Marc. 4, 22), "Do not listen to Moses and Elijah," who are present with him. The foregoing were intended as solutions of difficulties. Other pas- sages, which Marcion understood as directly inculcating his views, may interest the reader. In Matthew 9, 16, and Mark 2, 21, are the words of Jesus: " No one puts a patch of new cloth upon an old garment." Tertullian's argument (Adv. Marc. 3, 16) implies, without affirming, that Marcion understood Jesus as thereby alleging a total absence of connection between his rev- elation and, not merely the customs of the Jews, but the revelation made to them. According to Luke 10, 22, Jesus says, "No one knoweth who the Son is save the Father, and who the Father is save the Son, and he to whom the Son may wish to reveal him." Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4, 25) quotes the comment of Marcion on this : "And so Christ preached a [previously] unknown God." Other heretics, according to Tertullian, laid stress on the same passage, "Hinc enim ct alii Hasretici fulciuntur." By other heretics he means, as his context implies, other Gnostics. One passage of Paul, if disconnected from much of his other teach- ing, could be readily construed to favor Gnostic views. He speaks in 2 Corinth. 4, 4, of those "in whom the god of this world (or ' of this age ') hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they cannot see 334 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. XI. Luke, the companion of Paul, would be most free from Jewish prejudices. He adopted, therefore, his narrative as a basis, expunging from it what he deemed Jewish mis- conceptions or additions, and incorporating into it from the other Gospels such passages as he could press into his service. Marcion believed in three heavens, the system alluded to by Paul in 2 Cor. 12, 2. He deemed the uppermost, or third, heaven the residence of the Supreme Being, and a lower one that of the Jewish God.5 The Valentinians believed, in accordance with Alexandrine views, that the earth was spanned by seven heavens. These, equally with the earth, were, in their view, created by the Jewish Deity who dwelt in or over the seventh heaven. Above the heavens, separated by an immense " Middle Space," was the Pleroma, or " Fulness," where the Supreme Being dwelt. It was doubtless the sphere of the fixed stars.6 Marcion held the popular view concerning the under- world as a subterranean cavern. The Valentinians deemed our earth the underworld, or realm of darkness.7 the light of the glorious gospel of Christ." Tertullian {Adv. Marc. 5, ll) tells us that Marcion understood the god of this world to be the Creator, or God of the Jews. 5 See ' ' Belief of the First Three Centuries concerning Christ's Mission to the Underworld" § XXI. 2, pp. 109, 110 ; 3d edit. pp. 104 -106. Mr. Norton {Genuineness, 1st edit. 2, pp. 21, 22; abridged edit. p. 170) as- cribes to Marcion a belief, in common with Valentinians, in a Pleroma. This is an error. Its correction does not impair, and might be regarded as slightly strengthening, his main argument. The super-terrestrial sys- tem of Marcion was entirely unlike that of the Valentinians. 6 Compare Underworld Mission, Appendix, Note C. The term " Ple- roma" was probably given to the supposed sphere or heaven of the fixed stars, because all within it was thought to be full of the material universe and of God; while beyond it was a measureless void. See Cicero, Be Bepub. 6, 10; Somn. Scip. 4; Opp. Philos. 5, pp. 379, 410. Also Diog. Laert. Zeno, 70; edit. Huebner, 2, p. 180 ; Bonn's trans, p. 310. Cicero copies evidently from Stoic or monotheistic sources. The Valentinian Ogdoad of -