E.  L.  Hicks 
 
 Judith  and  Holofernes 
 
 -m"'  rx^«  I  wjtv^'v 
 
 '/ 
 
 *%:. 
 
 t 
 
 BS\735 
 
 iii- 
 
^  OF  PRI*^. 
 ^  JAN  13  19R1  ^  j 
 
 BSi7"3C 
 ,4.HG"5 
 
Warfield  Library 
 
 JUDITH  AND   HOLOFEMES 
 
 4§.>^' 
 
 BY 
 
 E.  L.  HICKS 
 
 REPRINTED  FROM  THE 
 JOURNAL  OF  HELLENIC  STUDIES 
 
 1885 
 
0 
 
'>5 
 
 JUDTTH  AND  HOLOFERNES. 
 
 Among  the  books  of  the  Apocrypha  two  portions  stand  out 
 in  strong  relief  as  bearing  the  marks  of  genius.  One  is  the 
 Book  of  Wisdom,  with  its  sustained  moral  fervour  and  luxuriant 
 yet  devout  fancy  ;  the  other,  the  noble  tragedy  of  the  Book  of 
 Judith.  The  latter  work  has  the  further  interest  of  presenting 
 a  curious  literary  problem.  Is  *  Judith '  in  any  sense  history, 
 or  even  based  on  history,  or  is  it  mere  romance  ?  Certainly 
 the  writer  takes  great  liberties  with  facts.  Time  and  place 
 have  to  yield  to  the  requirements  of  the  narrative.  Famous 
 names  are  mingled  together  in  extraordinary  combinations. 
 Nebuchadnezzar  reigns  over  the  Assyrians  at  Nineveh  ;  and  he 
 reigns  soon  after  the  Jewish  return  from  Captivity.  An 
 Arphaxad  rules  at  Ecbatane  as  king  of  the  Modes.  An 
 unknown  high  jiriest  Joachim  is  supreme  at  Jerusalem,  The 
 book  opens  moreover  with  a  catalogue  of  nations  brought  under 
 this  Nebuchadnezzar's  sway ;  and  the  list  teems  with  contra- 
 dictions of  history  and  even  of  probability. 
 
 1. 
 
 Learned  opinion  since  the  time  of  Grotius  ^  has  been  almost 
 unanimous  in  pronouncing  the  book  to  be  an  historical  romance, 
 of  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  or  later,  wherein  the  writer  sets 
 forth  in  parable  the  hopes  and  fears  of  his  nation,  and  stirs  up 
 his  countrymen  to  heroic  resistance  to  the  oppressor.  Opmion 
 has  been  more  divided  concerning  the  precise  date  of  its  compo- 
 sition.    Dr.  Westcott  would  assign  it  to  the  reign  of  Antiochua 
 
 ^  Prolegomena  in  lib.  Judith;  simi-       tincanonical  and    Apocryphal    Scrip' 
 larly     Mr.    Cliurton,    in     his    recent       tures, 
 
 B 
 
2  JUDITJI  AND  IIOLOFERNES. 
 
 Epiphanc?.^  Yolkmar  saw  in  it  an  allusion  to  Trajan's  Parthian 
 wars.^  Evv aid's  masterly  acquaintance  with  later  Jewish  history 
 led  him  to  fix  upon  one  particular  crisis  as  suggesting  the  com- 
 position of  the  book.^  That  moment  came  when  Demetrius  II. 
 surnamed  Nicator  (king  B.C.  146-138,  and  128-125),  after 
 first  invading  and  conquering  Parthia,  had  then  himself  been 
 taken  prisoner,  and  finally  after  ten  years'  captivity,  had  re- 
 established himself  upon  the  Syrian  throne.  In  vain  did  the 
 Parthian  king  endeavour  to  crush  him.  His  hopes  grew  with 
 his  successes.  He  meditated  the  invasion  of  Egypt.  He  was 
 bent  upon  recovering  for  Syria  all  that  he  and  his  predecessors 
 had  lost.  To  the  medley  of  cities  and  populations  which  made 
 up  the  Syrian  Empire  this  reappearance  of  Demetrius  must 
 have  brought  the  extremes  of  hope  and  fear.  It  unsettled 
 everything  for  years  to  come.  What  if  his  wild  schemes  of 
 conquest  should  be  successful,  and  carry  change  and  revolution 
 far  and  wide  ?  To  the  Jews  and  their  Elders  under  John  the 
 high  priest,  it  must  have  been  a  time  of  great  alarm.*  They 
 had  almost  forgotten  the  horrors  of  the  reign  of  Epiphanes ; 
 they  had  recovered  from  their  resistance  to  Demetrius  Soter. 
 The  fierce  heroism  which  had  preserved  them  in  those  awful 
 days  had  left  a  reaction  behind  it.  Their  energies  had  become 
 relaxed  ;  and  years  of  unbroken  peace  left  them  unprepared  for 
 the  danger  that  seemed  now  to  threaten.  The  book  of  Judith 
 (so  Ewald  suggests)  concentrates  the  fears  and  dangers  of  this 
 crisis  into  the  form  of  an  historical  romance.  The  narrative  is 
 prophetic,  symbolical ;  an  allegory  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  of 
 the  possibilities  of  Jewish  patriotism,  if  in  the  hour  of  uttermost 
 calamity  it  were  true  to  the  national  faith,  true  to  the  Mosaic 
 covenant.  To  Israel,  if  penitent  and  believing,  God's  promise 
 still  was  stedfast,  that  '  one  should  chase  a  thousand,  and  two 
 put  ten  thousand  to  flight.'  ^ 
 
 The  names  employed  in  the  story  do  but  slightly  veil  the 
 personality  of  the  principal  figures.  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  proud 
 and  mighty  tyrant,  whose  throne  (in  defiance  of  all  historical 
 facts)  is  placed  at  Nineveh  after  the  Jewish  Return, — who  plans 
 
 ^  Dictionary     of    tJie     Bible,     s.v.  ^  GescJiichte   dcs    Volkes   Israel,    iv. 
 
 Judith.  p.  G18,  foil. 
 
 -  See  Winer's  Eealworterbuch,  s.v.  ^  Ewald,  Gcschichtc,  iv.  jx  451. 
 
 ^  Deuteronomy  xxxii.  30. 
 
JUDITH  AND  HOLOFERNES.  3 
 
 ambitious  schemes  of  conquest,  and  is  enraged  when  the  vassal 
 peoples  refuse  the  help  he  demands  for  his  war  against '  Arphax- 
 ad,  king  of  the  Medes/ — who  determines  therefore  not  only  to 
 destroy  Arphaxad,  but  to  reduce  to  submission  all  the  countries 
 round  about, — he  is  Demetrius  Nicator,  as  he  ajDpeared  to  the 
 excited  imagination  of  a  Hebrew  patriot.  By  the  Biblical  term 
 '  Medes '  the  writer  signified  the  Parthians  ;  while  the  similar 
 sounding  name  Arphaxad  is  borrowed  from  Genesis  ^  to  indicate 
 the  dynasty  of  the  Arsacidse.  The  name  of  Joachim  with  his 
 friends  at  Jerusalem  scarcely  veils  the  person  of  John  Maccabeus 
 and  the  national  council.  Slight  as  the  writer's  regard  may  be 
 for  historical  facts,  the  whole  book  is  true  to  the  spirit  of  the 
 time.  The  entire  career  of  Demetrius,  his  early  victories  over 
 Parthia,  his  long  exile,  his  final  recovery  of  the  throne,  are  all 
 gathered  up  into  one  point,  and  he  figures  as  an  ambitious, 
 overbearing  tyrant.  The  danger  of  the  Jewish  people  in  the 
 presence  of  his  power,  and  the  need  of  primitive  piety  and  even 
 more  than  primitive  courage  to  ward  it  off,  are  thrown  into 
 dramatic  form  in  the  expedition  of  Holofernes,  the  invasion  of 
 Palestine,  the  heroic  design  and  victorious  deliverance  of  Judith. 
 And  Judith  herself  is,  what  her  name  implies,  *  the  daughter  of 
 Judah,'  the  people  of  Israel,  the  spouse  of  Jehovah.  A  widow 
 she  is,  but  beautiful  to  look  upon,  and  as  pious  as  she  is  fair ; 
 like  Jerusalem,  bereaved  of  her  ancient  glories,  yet  still  not  lost 
 to  hope.  Another  Deborah,  she  will  arise  '  a  mother  in  Israel,' 
 to  encourage  the  people  of  God ;  like  Jael,  she  will  slay  the 
 enemy  of  God  in  the  tent ;  another  Miriam,  she  breaks  forth 
 into  singing  at  the  discomfiture  of  the  hosts  of  the  aliens. 
 
 Such,  in  brief,  is  the  combination  suggested  by  Ewald. 
 Perhaps  the  great  German  scholar  goes  too  far  in  attempting 
 so  minutely  to  fix  the  date  of  the  book.  It  may  be  urged  that 
 Demetrius  II.  was  not  so  terrible  to  the  Jews  as  this  view  of 
 the  case  implies.  His  restored  reign  lasted  four  years  at  most ; 
 and  all  the  time  he  was  harassed  by  conspiracies  and  rebellions. 
 We  do  not  hear  of  his  taking  any  action  against  the  Jews.  We 
 mioht  think  the  sendino^  out  of  Holofernes  bears  more  resem- 
 blance  to  the  expedition  of  Nicanor  under  Demetrius  Soter,^ 
 which  was   so  gloriously  defeated  by  Judas  Maccabeus.     The 
 
 1  xi.  12.  ^1  Maccabees  vii. 
 
 B    2 
 
4  JUDITH  AND  HOLOFERNES. 
 
 recollection  of  that  victory  must,  one  would  think,  have  been 
 fresh  in  the  memory  of  the  writer  of  Judith.  One  name  at  all 
 events  there  is  in  the  book  which  is  not  Jewish,  and  was 
 unlikely  to  be  known  to  Jewish  ears ;  but  which  connects  the 
 authorship  with  the  recollections  of  the  reign  of  Demetrius  I., — 
 this  is  the  name  of  the  second  figure  of  the  tragedy,  Holofernes. 
 The  name  is  found  nowhere  outside  the  dynasty  of  Cappadocia. 
 And  the  most  famous  prince  of  the  name  was  a  well-known 
 friend  of  Demetrius  I.,  the  features  of  whose  character,  so  far  as 
 we  know  them,  agree  with  the  portraiture  of  Holofernes. 
 
 This  coincidence  has  not  escaped  the  attention  of  Ewald;^  the 
 first  readers  of  the  book  of  Judith  (he  argues)  would  inevitably  be 
 struck  by  the  name  Holofernes,  and  would  think  of  the  friend 
 of  Demetrius  Soter,  and  thereby  would  have  a  clue  to  the 
 symbolical  meaning  of  the  whole  story. 
 
 Before  I  had  come  across  Ewald's  remarks,  or  indeed  had  read 
 any  criticism  of  the  book  of  Judith,  I  had  been  led  to  a  similar 
 conviction  concerning  its  origin ;  but  I  reached  the  same  goal 
 with  Ewald  by  a  very  different  route.  It  is  to  my  own 
 starting  point  that  I  ask  leave  now  to  transport  the 
 reader. 
 
 II. 
 
 Upon  a  certain  spring  morning,  about  Easter  1765,  three 
 travellers  might  have  been  seen  toiling  along  the  slopes  of 
 Mount  Mycale  in  Asia  Minor,  under  the  guidance  of  a  Greek 
 peasant  at  whose  house  they  had  slept  the  night  before  in  the 
 Turkish  village  of  Kelebesh.  After  an  hour's  climb  they  reach 
 the  citadel  of  the  ancient  Ionian  city  of  Priene.  One  of  the 
 party  is  Richard  Chandler,  a  young  Oxford  scholar  in  his  twenty- 
 seventh  year,  who  has  been  sent  into  Greece  by  the  Society  of 
 Dilettanti  on  a  mission  of  archaeological  discovery.  His  com- 
 panions are  Revett,  the  architect — well-known  afterwards  as  the 
 collaborateur  of  *  Athenian '  Stuart  in  editing  the  Antiquities 
 of  Athens, — and  M.  Pars,  a  young  artist.  Chandler's  book  of 
 travels  gives  a  charming  narrative  of  his  tour,  and  from  it 
 we  may  take  his  account  of  this  morning's  trip.^ 
 
 ^  Ibid.  p.  621,  note.  and  Greece,  edited  by  N.  Revett,  Es([. , 
 
 ^  Cliaudlcr's  Travels  in  Asia  Minor       vol.  i.  jjp.  199,  foil. 
 
JUDITH  AND  IIOLOFERNES.  5 
 
 'Our  guide  led  us  first  tlirougli  the  village  up  to  the  acropolis 
 or  citadel ;  the  ascent  lasting  an  hour,  the  track  bad,  by  breaks 
 in  the  mountain  and  small  cascades.  We  then  arrived  on  a 
 summit  of  Mycale,  large,  distinct,  and  rough,  uith  stunted  trees 
 and  deserted  cottages,  encircled,  except  toward  the  plain,  by  an 
 ancient  wall.  This  had  been  repaired,  and  made  tenable  in  a 
 later  age  by  additional  outworks.  A  steep,  high,  naked  rock 
 rises  behind ;  and  the  area  terminates  before  in  a  most  abrupt 
 and  formidable  precii)ice,  from  which  we  looked  down  with 
 wonder  on  the  diminutive  objects  beneath  us.  The  massive 
 heap  of  a  t43m])le  below  appeared  to  the  naked  eye  but  as 
 elii])])ing3  of  marble.'  That  heap  was  the  ruined  temple  of 
 AtlK.'ue  Polias  at  Prien6. 
 
 This  building  is  one  of  the  few  Greek  temples  of  which  the 
 ])n'cise  date  is  tixcd  by  written  testimony.  One  of  the  marble 
 blocks  which  funned  the  entrance  is  inscribed  with  the  following 
 words  in  largo,  handsome  characters  :  *  Alexander  dedicated  this 
 tem})le  to  Athene'  Polias.'  ^  We  are  left  in  no  doubt  as  to  who 
 is  meant  by  '  Alexander.'  Apart  from  other  indications  which 
 are  decisive,  tiiere  is  a  story  (pioted  by  Strabo  from  an  earlier 
 historian,  that  when  Alexander  tlie  Gn  at  visited  Ephesus  after 
 his  first  victory  over  the  Persians  at  the  river  Granicus,  he 
 found  the  Ephesians  rebuilding  their  famous  temple,  which  the 
 insane  ambition  cf  Ilerostratus  had  burned  down  on  the  ni«dit 
 of  Alexander's  birth.  It  was  now  nearly  complete  when 
 Alexander  ofi'ered  to  defray  the  entire  cost  of  it  upon  con- 
 dition that  he  might  inscribe  his  name  upon  it  as  the  dedicator. 
 The  Ephesians  adroitly  veiled  their  refusal  under  the  flattering 
 J  ilea  that  '  it  was  not  proper  for  a  go<.l  to  dedicate  temples  to 
 the  gods.'-  The  Prienians,  more  obsequious  or  perhaps  less 
 wealthy,  must  have  accepted  a  similar  offer  from  the  com^ueror, 
 whose  dedication  was  the  first  inscription  engraved  upon  the 
 newly  erected  walls.  This  interesting  marble  may  be  seen  any 
 day  in  the  Mausoleum  lluom  in  the  British  Museum. 
 
 ^  Bockh's  Corpus  Inscripfiouum  Grac-  Ka\   to  fitWovra   a.faXwfj.aTa,   (<p'  ^  re 
 
 Cftnimy  No.  2904  :  BaaiAevs  'AAtlavSpos  tijp  iiriypacprju  aurbu  tx^iv,  toi/j   Sf  jx^ 
 
 a.viQy]Ki  tuv  vabv  'Adrjvair}  UoAidSt.  Com-  «df\rj<Tai   .    .   .    iTtaivfl  re  (<i  'ApTf^ilSw 
 
 pare  Droysc-n,    Ilcllcninmus,    i.    1,    p.  pos)  ruv  fliruuTa  ruiv  ^E<p(alwv  irphs  rhv 
 
 202.  fiaai\(a,  is  ou  irpfirui  6((f  Oeuis  ayaOr)- 
 
 -  Stral>o,    xiv.    p.    610  :  'A\(^av5pow  /xara  irapaaKfvd<^fii'. 
 5 J)  Toii  ^E<p(aioiS  viro(rx«'<70ot  TO  7€7t»^o'Ta 
 
6  JUDITH  AND  lIOLOrERNES. 
 
 Chandler  proceeds  to  describe  his  descent  by  a  winding  path 
 down  the  precipice  to  the  city :  '  The  steps  cut  in  the  rock 
 were  narrow,  the  path  frequently  not  wider  than  the  body,  and 
 so  steep  as  scarcely  to  allow  a  footing.  The  sun  shone  full 
 upon  us,  and  was  reverberated  by  the  rugged  side  of  the 
 mountain  to  which  we  leaned,  avoiding  as  much  as  possible  the 
 frightful  view  of  the  abyss  beneath  us,  and  shrinking  from 
 the  brink.  The  long-continued  descent  made  the  whole  frame 
 quiver/  It  would  seem  that  Chandler  was  an  indifferent 
 mountaineer ;  and  indeed  his  biographer  bluntly  describes  him 
 as  '  round,  and  considerably  below  the  standard '  in  height.^ 
 But  he  was  a  splendid  scholar,  whose  services  to  Greek  learning 
 have  not  yet  been  sufficiently  recognised.^  Arrived  at  the 
 temple-site  below,  the  three  travellers  proceeded  to  examine 
 the  ruins ;  these  lay  around  in  picturesque  confusion,  bare  of 
 any  covering  of  earth,  just  as  they  had  fallen  centuries  before, 
 perhaps  shaken  down  by  an  earthquake.  Chandler  made 
 memoranda,  and  copied  inscriptions ;  Revett  measured  and  took 
 notes  of  the  architectural  remains ;  Pars,  the  artist,  made  sketches 
 of  the  scene.  The  results  of  their  labour  may  be  found  in 
 Part  i.  of  the  Antiqidties  of  Ionia,  published  in  1769,  giving 
 views  of  the  locality,  descriptions  and  plates  of  the  architecture, 
 and  copies  of  several  inscriptions.  When  we  remember  that 
 these  ruins  contained  the  tolerably  complete  remains  of  a 
 temple  which,  though  small,  was  one  of  the  finest  specimens 
 of  Ionic  architecture  in  existence,  it  is  almost  incredible  that 
 over  a  century  was  allowed  to  pass  before  any  attempt  was 
 made  to  explore  the  ruins,  and  to  recover  and  preserve  from 
 among  them  the  most  important  relics  of  art  which  there  lay 
 hid. 
 
 In  the  winter  of  1868  the  same  Society,  which  had  sent  out 
 Chandler  and  Revett,  at  length  commissioned  Mr.  PuUan  to  go 
 out  and  explore  the  ruins.  Excavation  there  needed  none. 
 The  moving  of  the  huge  blocks  of  marble,  the  packing  and 
 transporting  of  fragments  of  statuary,  architecture  and  inscrip- 
 tions, this  was  all  that  was  required  ;  and  it  was  done  with  due 
 
 ^  Biography  by  Archdeacon  Churton,  tions  previously  edited  by  Chandler, 
 
 prefixed  to  the  Travels.  and  I  have  seldom  found  his  copy  to 
 
 ■^  It  has  often  fallen  to  my  task  to  require  any  alteration,  whether  in  the 
 
 verify  the  readings  of  Greek  inscrip-  way  of  addition  or  correction. 
 
JUDITH  AND  IIOLOFERNES.  7 
 
 skill  and  care.  The  marbles  were  shipped  to  England,  and 
 now  form  part  of  the  treasures  of  the  British  Museum.  The 
 chief  results  of  Mr.  Pullan's  researches  are  given  in  Part  iv.  of 
 the  Antiquities  of  Ionia. 
 
 I  have  been  assured  by  Mr.  C.  T.  Newton,  who  visited  Priene 
 in  18G9  and  1870,  as  a  member  of  the  Society  of  Dilettanti, 
 that  when  the  site  had  been  cleared  by  Mr.  Pullan,  the  ruin 
 was  still  very  beautiful.  The  more  interesting  indeed  of  the 
 sculptured  marbles  had  been  removed,  and  nearly  all  the  in- 
 scribed blocks.  But  their  removal  had  relieved  the  site  of 
 much  that  merely  encumbered  it.  The  platform  was  now  clear ; 
 and  the  marble  pavement  of  the  temple,  in  good  preservation, 
 was  free  of  rubbish.  The  lower  portions  of  the  walls  and  of 
 many  columns  were  standing  in  their  original  position,  and 
 made  it  easy  for  the  beholder  to  reconstruct  in  fancy  the  ancient 
 proportions  of  the  building.  On  the  floor  of  the  pavement 
 there  still  remained  the  lower  courses  of  the  pedestal,  upon 
 which  had  stood  the  image  of  Athena  herself,  a  statue  of 
 which  the  traveller  Pausanias  (in  the  second  century  A.D.) 
 records  his  admiration }  '  You  would  be  charmed  with  the 
 temple  of  Athen^  at  Priene  in  particular,  on  account  of  her 
 statue.'  In  front  of  the  pedestal  a  semicircular  groove  in  the 
 pavement  on  either  side  marked  the  position  of  the  barrier,  or 
 screen,  with  its  metallic  gates,  which  forbad  the  approach  of 
 intruding  steps.  All  this,  and  more,  was  still  there,  as  Mr. 
 Pullan*s  photographs  and  plans  testify  to  those  who  had  not 
 the  good  fortune  to  see  the  ruin  in  1870.^ 
 
 It  is  sad  to  think  that  the  intelligent  interest  shown  in 
 a  ruin  by  Western  archaeologists  has  usually  the  effect  of 
 hastening  its  utter  destruction.  No  sooner  had  the  English 
 explorers  bidden  farewell  to  Prien^,  than  the  stonemasons  of 
 the  nearest  Greek  village  established  themselves  among  the 
 ruins,  and  began  to  work  up  into  doorsteps,  or  tombstones, 
 those  beautiful  marble  blocks  which  had  been  shaped  and 
 dressed  by  the  Greek  workmen  of  Alexander's  age.  The 
 temple  ruins  became  now  a  convenient  quarry.     In  particular 
 
 ^  Pausanias,  vii,  5,  §  3  :  rjaOeiris  5'  ^    See    the    interesting    account    of 
 
 tiu  Kol   Tip    iv   'Epv9pa7s  'Hpa/cAeiy   kuI  Priene  and  the  beautiful  views  given 
 
 'Adrjvas  r^  iv  Tlpir]VT}  vacf),   tovto)  yikv  by  Rayet  et  Thomas,  Milct  et  le  Golfe 
 
 Tov    ayaAfiaros     iveKa,     'HpaKKelo)     5e  LiUmiquc,  Paris,  1877-1880. 
 
 K.T.A. 
 
8  JUDITH  AND  HOLOFERNES. 
 
 the  large  blocks  wliich  composed  the  ancient  pedestal  of  the 
 o-oddess  were  one  by  one  dislodged  from  their  place;  and 
 within  a  few  montlis  only  four  of  them  remained  in  their 
 ancient  position  in  the  centre  of  the  pedestal.^ 
 
 On  a  Saturday  in  April  1870,  Mr.  A.  0.  Clarke,  an  Englishman 
 residing  in  the  neighbourhood,  paid  a  visit  to  the  ruins.     They 
 were  not  new  to  him,  as  twelve  months  before  he  had  been  there 
 and  had  carefully  examined  the  work  then  progressing  under 
 the  guidance  of  Mr.  Newton  and  Mr.  Pullan.     At  this  second 
 visit  he  was  accompanied  by  his  wife  and   niece;  and  upon 
 entering  within  the  temple  ruins,  he  noticed  at  once  the  work 
 of  destruction  which  had  begun  upon  the  pedestal.     While  he 
 stood  amid  its  upturned  blocks,  his  eye  was  caught  by  a  coin 
 lying  at  his  feet.     He  at  once"  picked  it  up,  and  cleansed  it ; 
 and  found  it  to  be  of  silver,  and  inscribed  with  the  name  of 
 Orophernes.     The  idea  then  struck  him  that  the  coin  had  been 
 turned  up  from  under  the  marbles  of  the  pedestal;  and  he 
 conceived  the  wish   to  remove  and  examine  the  four  blocks 
 which  still  remained  in  situ.     Two  masons  at  work  among  the 
 ruins  were  soon  employed  at  the  task;  their  crowbars   soon 
 removed   the  first  stone  of  the  four,  and  under  it  was  found 
 a  silver  coin  similar  to  the  one  already  picked  up.     A  second 
 stone  was  dislodged,  with  a  similar  result.     The  removal  of  the 
 other  two  blocks  brought  no  more  coins  to  light;  but  under 
 them  were  found  portions  of  a  golden  chaplet  of  olive  leaves, 
 and  other  objects  of  value.     A  search  among  the  rubbish  for 
 more  coins  was  attended  with  no  further  success,  although  two 
 or  three  Greeks  from  Kelebesh,  who  had  come  to  Priene  to  see 
 Mr.  Clarke,  joined  in  the  task ;  while  some  Yuruks  from  the 
 hill  side,  attracted  by  the  good  luck  of  the  Franks  whom  they 
 saw  examining  the  ruins,  all  joined  in  the  general  search.     At 
 length  Mr.  Clai'ke  and  his  pai^ty  went  away,  with  the  three 
 coins  and  other  objects.^ 
 
 ^  M.  Rayet  says  (iUd.  vol,  ii.  p.  2)  are  now  destroyed, 
 that  as   late    as    1874     he    iiroposed  ^  These  details  we  learn   from  the 
 
 to  the  authorities  of  the   Louvre   to  letter  of  Mr.   Clarke  himself  to  Geu. 
 
 secure  for  the  French  nation  various  Fox,  published  by  Mr.  C.  T.  Newton  in 
 
 arohiteotui^l  fragments  of  gi'eat  beauty  his  paper  '  On  an  iuedited  Tetradrachm 
 
 even  then  remaining  amid  the  ruins.  of  Orophernes  II.,'  in  the  Ntimismatic 
 
 Ills  suggestion  received  no  attention,  Chivnidc,  New  Series,  xi.  p.  19. 
 aiid  most  of  the  marbles  he  spoke  of 
 
JUDITH  AND  HOLOFERNES.  9 
 
 This  happened  on  the  Saturday.  The  next  day  being  Sunday, 
 all  the  inhabitants  of  Kelebesh,  men,  women,  and  children, 
 sallied  forth  to  Priene,  bent  on  the  discovery  of  treasure.  So 
 sure  were  they  that  it  was  to  be  found,  that  two  Jews  followed 
 them,  armed  with  a  free  supply  of  ready  cash  to  purchase  any 
 bargains  that  might  be  turned  up.  The  ruined  temple  was 
 thus  handed  over  to  a  rapacious  mob.  Pickaxe,  lever,  crowbai- 
 were  brought  to  work,  to  upturn,  to  dislodge,  to  thrust  aside 
 whatever  might  be  thouoht  to  conceal  treasures.  The  search, 
 so  insanely  attempted,  had  no  other  result  than  to  spoil  the 
 beauty  of  the  ruins;  nothing  Avhatever  was  found.  On  the 
 Monday  following,  however,  the  Greek  masons  who  had  assisted 
 Mr.  Clarke,  in  looking  over  the  rubbish  near  the  pedestal,  found 
 a  further  fragment  of  a  gold  chaplet,  and  two  more  coins  like 
 the  others,  making  five  in  all.  A  sixth  was  subsequently 
 purchased  by  Mr.  Newton  at  Prien^,  but  was  unfortunately 
 lost. 
 
 One  of  these  coins,  which  Avere  in  excellent  preservation,  is 
 now  in  the  British  Museum,  and  is  photographed  in  Mr.  Head's 
 Coins  of  the  Ancients,  Plate  51,  No.  23.  It  is  a  silver  tetra- 
 drachm  (the  equivalent  of  a  four-franc  piece),  and  is  described 
 in  numismatic  terms  as  follows  : — 
 
 Ohversc. — Male  head  to  right,  beardless,  and  bound  with 
 a  fillet. 
 
 i^cT^rsc— BAZIAEnS  oPo(|)EPMo Y  NlKH(J)oPoY  (King 
 Orophernes  the  victorious).  Tlie  legend  surrounds  a  figure  of 
 Victory  moving  to  left,  and  clad  in  a  tunic  that  reaches  her 
 feet;  she  holds  in  her  right  hand  a  wreath,  in  her  left  a  palm 
 branch.  In  front  of  her  is  an  owl  standing  on  an  altar,  perhaps 
 in  allusion  to  the  gcoddess  Athene. 
 Who  is  this  Orophernes  ? 
 
 It  is  beyond  question  that  the  prince  who  struck  these  coins 
 is  Orophernes  II.,  King  of  Cappadocia.  He  was  brought  into 
 singular  relations  with  the  city  of  Prien^,  and  his  adventures 
 made  a  deep  impression  upon  the  pohtical  world  of  his  day. 
 The  historian  Polybius  appears  to  have  related  them  with  much 
 detail.  He  was  a  contemporary  of  Orophernes,  and  was  living 
 at  Rome  when  the  disputes  about  the  Cappadocian  succession 
 were  being  discussed  in  the  senate,  and  he  was  fully  acquainted 
 with  the  intrigues  that  were  going  on  respcctiug  it  among  tho 
 
10  JUDITH  AND  HOLOFERNES. 
 
 leading  Roman  politicians.  Unhappily  a  great  part  of  his 
 nari'ative  is  extant  only  in  extracts  and  fragments.  But  I  think 
 it  evident  that  all  the  statements  about  Orophernes  in  Diodorus 
 Siculus  and  others,  came  straight  from  Polybius,  and  may 
 therefore  be  fully  believed. 
 
 We  are  told  that  Antiochis,  the  wife  of  Ariarathes  IV.,  Kinsr 
 of  Cappadocia,  disappointed  at  having  no  heir,  imposed  upon 
 her  husband  two  pretended  sons,  of  whom  this  Orophernes  was 
 one.  Some  years  later,  however,  she  gave  birth  to  a  legitimate 
 heir,  who  afterwards  succeeded  his  father  as  Ariarathes  V. 
 Upon  the  birth  of  her  child,  Antiochis  confessed  to  her  husband 
 the  true  facts  of  the  case,  and  arranged  to  exclude  the  two 
 other  princes  from  the  succession.  One  of  them  upon  a  con- 
 venient pretext  was  despatched  to  Rome,  and  seems  never  to 
 have  been  heard  of  afterwards.  The  other,  Orophernes,  was 
 sent  into  Ionia,  where  he  was  brought  up  amid  surroundings  of 
 ease  and  luxury,  which  seemed  likely  to  stifle  any  aspirations 
 to  the  Cappadocian  throne.^  Ariarathes  V.  accordingly  suc- 
 ceeded his  father  B.C.  162.  But  at  once  Orophernes  came  forth 
 from  retirement  as  a  pretender  to  the  throne ;  his  claim  being 
 supported  by  the  Syrian  monarch  Demetrius  Soter,  who  had 
 a  personal  grudge  against  Ariarathes  for  refusing  his  sister  in 
 marriage.^  It  is  also  said  that  Demetrius  accepted  large  gifts 
 and  larger  promises  from  his  proUg4,  The  result  was  that 
 Ariarathes  was  driven  from  his  kingdom,  and  Orophernes 
 enthroned  in  his  place,  B.C.  158.^  Ariarathes,  who  is  described 
 as  an  excellent  and  cultivated  prince,  hastened  to  Rome  to  lay 
 his  grievances  before  the  senate ;  and  he  was  followed  thither 
 by  envoys  from  Demetrius  Soter,  and  also  from  Orophernes. 
 The  latter  sent  valuable  presents  to  Rome,  and  endeavoured  to 
 secure  interest  in  every  possible  way.  Polybius  was  at  Rome 
 at  the  time,  and  the  account  he  gives  of  these  transactions  is 
 not  creditable  to  Roman  diplomacy.*  The  case  of  Ariarathes 
 was  a  good  one ;  but  he  stood  alone,  and  perhaps  had  not,  when 
 coming  to  Rome,  'put  money  in  his  purse.'  The  envoys  of 
 Demetrius  lied  without  scruple.  Orophernes  made  interest  by 
 his   gifts.     The   result  was   such   as   might   be    expected — an 
 
 1  Athen.    x.    440,    expressly  citing  ^  Justin,  xxxv.  1  ;  Appian,  Sijr.  47. 
 
 Tolybius  as  his  authority  ;    Diod.  Sic.  3  Diod.  Sic.  xxxi.  43. 
 
 xxxi.  28.  4  l>olyb.  xxxii.  20. 
 
JUDITH  AND  IIOLOFERXES.  11 
 
 unworkable  compromise.  Ariarathes  was  restored,^  but  not 
 to  an  undivided  rule.  Orophernes  was  to  have  a  share  in 
 the  kingdom,  the  territory  of  Cappadocia  being  perhaps  divided 
 between  them.2  This  happened  B.C.  157.  The  unnatural  scheme 
 did  not  last  long.  From  the  first  there  began  to  be  disputes 
 between  the  two  kings,  ending  in  the  final  expulsion  of 
 Orophernes  amid  the  execration  of  his  subjects,  whom  he  had 
 alienated  by  avaricious  extortion  to  gratify  his  own  indulgence, 
 and  to  reward  his  patrons.^ 
 
 Certainly  Polybius,  who  knew  the  facts,  described  the  cha- 
 racter of  Orophernes  in  no  pleasing  terms.  Brought  up  in 
 Ionia,  an  exile  and  a  pretender,  he  early  developed  the  vices 
 of  an  adventurer.  In  public  life  he  was  unscrupulous;  as  a 
 ruler,  selfish  and  extortionate  ;  in  private,  a  hard  drinker.  His 
 portrait  on  the  coins  is  finely  modelled,  and  does  not  conflict 
 with  this  view  of  his  character.  It  is  the  portrait  of  a  hand- 
 some, clever,  and  capable  man,  young  in  years,  but  not  in 
 experience  of  the  world.  His  chin  is  unbearded,  but  his 
 forehead  is  lined  with  care.  The  fine  profile  bespeaks  a 
 resolute  will  and  energetic  purpose.  The  nostril  is  delicately 
 moulded,  and,  like  the  mouth,  suggests  a  nature  sensitive  to 
 pleasure  though  refined  in  taste ;  but  the  lower  lip  has  a  sensual 
 expression,  and  there  is  a  certain  restlessness  and  impatience 
 marked  upon  the  whole  face,  which  suits  well  with  his 
 che(|uered  career.** 
 
 I  reserve  to  the  last  the  curious  episode  in  the  life  of 
 Oro])hernes,  which  connects  him  with  Prion 6.  Upon  gaining 
 the  crown  in  158  B.C.,  in  the  true  spirit  of  a  pretender,  he 
 deposited  400  talents  (about  £100,000)  with  the  Prienians,  as 
 something  to  fall  back  upon  if  fortune  forsook  him.°  This  sum 
 they  deposited  doubtless  in  their  temple  of  Athene ;  for  the 
 temples  of  antiquity  were  often  so  employed,  as  the  safest 
 banks  of  deposit.  His  selection  of  Priene  for  this  purpose 
 may  have  had  something  to  do  with  his  Ionian  experiences. 
 Prien^  was  quite  a  small  and  imimportant  place ;  ^  but  it  had 
 
 ^  Livy,  Epit.  47  ;  Polyb.  iii.  5.  *  Head,  Coins  of  the  Ancients^  plate 
 
 "^  Appian,  Syr.   47  ;   Polyb.    xxxiii.  51,  fig.  23. 
 12  :  n€T€\a0e  ttJs  apxv^-  ^    Polyb.     xxxiii.     12  ;    Diod.    Sic. 
 
 *  Polyb.    xxxiii,    12  a ;   Athcn.    x.  xxxi.  4. 
 440  6  ;  Aelian,  Var.  IHat.  ii.  41  ;  Diod.  ^  Aeschiiies,  Dc  Fahu  Leg.  p.  28G. 
 
 Sic.  xxxi.  43. 
 
12  JUDITH  AND  HOLOFERNES. 
 
 contrived   to  maintain  a  creditable  position  for   independence 
 among  all  the  vicissitTides  of  these  troubled  times.^     Perhaps 
 it  was  considered  at  this  period  to  be  attached  to  the  Syrian 
 monarchy ;  possibly  Orophernes  had  lived  there  in  his  exile. 
 At  all   events,  by  becoming   guardians  of   this  treasure,  the 
 Prienians  drew  upon  themselves  the  attention  of  all  Greece. 
 For  Ariarathes  V.  no  sooner  regained  possession  of  his  kingdom 
 than  he  demanded   the  money  for   himself.     Orophernes,  he 
 contended,  had   placed  it  there  in  his  capacity  as  king ;   and 
 therefore  the  money  should  be  restored  to  the  royal  exchequer. 
 The  contemporary  world  argued  the  question  pro  and  con,  as 
 a  point  of  casuistry.     The   Prienians  declined  to  restore  the 
 deposit   to   any  one,   except   to    Orophernes,   while   he   lived. 
 Polybius  frankly  says,  they  did  quite  right.     Upon  their  refusal, 
 Ariarathes  invaded  the  Prienian  territory,  with  the  assistance  of 
 the  King  of  Pergamon,  pillaging  and  slaying  all  they  could  find, 
 up  to  the  very  walls  of  Prion e.      Despairing  of  deliverance, 
 yet  firm  in  their  refusal,  the  Prienians  appealed  to  Rhodes,  and 
 then  to  the  Roman  senate.^     Of  the  subsequent  details  of  the 
 controversy  we  are  not  fully  informed.     We  should  know  more, 
 if   an   inscription   now   in   the   British   Museum,^   which   was 
 engraved  upon   the  walls  of   the  Prienian  temple,   were   still 
 complete.     In  its  fragmentary  state  we  can  but  decipher  the 
 names  of  '  Orophernes,'  '  King  Attains  and  King  Ariarathes ; ' 
 we  read  of  certain  treasures  deposited  '  by  Orophernes  in  the 
 temple  of  Athene,'  of  '  the  siege  of  the  city,'  '  the  carrying  off" 
 of  cattle  and  slaves,'  and  of  an  appeal  to  '  the  senate.'    Polybius 
 merely  affirms  that  the  Prienians  held  fast  to  their  deposit,  and 
 finally  surrendered  it  to  Orophernes  himself. 
 
 We  need  not  pursue  further  his  adventures.  We  are  told 
 that  when  it  suited  him  he  afterwards  joined  in  the  coalition 
 which  crushed  Demetrius,  thus  '  biting  the  hand  that  had  fed 
 him.'  His  end  is  unrecorded.  It  is  clear  that  the  coins  found 
 by  Mr.  Clarke  must  have  been  struck  by  Orophernes  when  first 
 he  became  King  of  Cappadocia,  B.C.  158.     It  is  observed  that 
 
 1  Reference  may  be  made  to  an  article  ^  It  will  appear  as  No.  ccccxxiv.  of 
 
 on  this  subject  in  the  Journal  of  Hcl-  the  Greek  Inscnptions  in  the  BritL^h 
 
 lenic  Studies,  iv.  p.  237.  lluseum,  of  which  Part  3  is  now  in  the 
 
 ^  Polyb.  xxxiii.  12  ;  Diod.  Sic.  xxxi.  press. 
 43. 
 
JUDITH  AND  IIOLOFERNES.  13 
 
 they  bear  no  resemblance  to  the  other  coinage  of  the  Cappa- 
 docian  dynasty,  but  correspond  to  the  style  and  the  standard  of 
 the  Ionian  coinage  of  the  period.^  It  is  suggested  that,  having 
 been  educated  in  Ionia,  he  preferred  the  more  refined  style  of 
 Ionian  art,  and  may  have  employed  the  mint  of  Prien^  to  strike 
 these  very  coins :  this  would  account  for  the  owl  on  the 
 reverse.  The  shortness  of  his  reign  partly  accounts  for  the 
 circumstance  that  no  other  of  his  coins  have  ever  yet  been 
 found.  What  few  pieces  he  did  circulate,  would  of  course  be 
 suppressed  by  Ariarathes,  upon  his  recovering  the  sole  autho- 
 rity. It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  six  coins  dis- 
 covered under  the  stones  of  the  pedestal,  were  part  of  the 
 deposit  of  400  talents.  It  is  a  far  more  probable  conjecture 
 that  Orophcrncs,  after  receiving  back  his  deposit,  dedicated  the 
 pedestal  and  the  statue  upon  it  to  Athen6  Polias,  by  way  of 
 recompense  to  the  Prienians  for  the  losses  they  had  sustained 
 in  guarding  the  treasure.  Accordingly,  in  erecting  the  pedestal, 
 he  had  certain  of  his  coins  placed  between  the  marble  courses.^ 
 
 In  editing  the  inscriptions  brought  by  Mr.  Pullan  from 
 Priene,  it  fell  to  my  task  to  study  closely  the  history  of 
 Oropherncs ;  and  it  was  impossible  not  to  ask  myself,  *  Has 
 this  adventurous  prince  anything  to  do  with  the  Holofernes 
 of  Judith  ? '  The  closer  I  scanned  the  situation  of  contemporary 
 politics,  and  realised  the  attitude  of  the  Jews  towards  the 
 movements  going  on  in  Syria,  the  clearer  it  seemed  that  the 
 Cappadocian  prince  whom  Demetrius  Soter  had  made  his  tool, 
 might  easily  have  been  known  by  name  to  the  Jews  as  the 
 friend  of  their  great  enemy;  and  the  conviction  thus  became 
 iiTesistible  that  the  author  of  Judith  could  hardly  have  learned 
 the  alien  name  Holofernes  through  any  other  channel  than 
 this,  and  therefore  that  the  date  of  the  book  cannot  be  earlier, 
 and  is  probably  not  much  later,  than  B.C.  150. 
 
 Thus  we  arrive  at  much  the  same  result  as  Ewald,  though  by 
 a  very  different  path.  The  latest  results  of  Greek  archaeology 
 curiously  illustrate,  and  so  far  confirm,  the  views  of  the  great 
 literary  critic.     There   may  be  many  who  will  be  glad  to  be 
 
 ^  See  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Newton,  in  Museum  ;   see  Mr.   Newton's  remarks 
 
 the  ]Memoir  above  cited.  in  the  Numismatic  Chronicle  just  cited  ; 
 
 2  Fraf^ments  of  the  colossal  statue  also  in  Part  iv.  of  Antiquities  of  Ionia, 
 
 arc    now    preserved     in    the     British  p.  25. 
 
14 
 
 JUDITH  AND  HOLOFERNES. 
 
 introduced  to  the  historical  personality,  and  even  to  the  actual 
 features  of  the  contemporary  prince,  whose  name  and  fame 
 lent  themselves  to  the  service  of  the  author  of  the  book  of 
 Judith.i 
 
 ^  The  name  is  properly  Orophemes 
 COpo(j)€pyr]s),  being  so  written  on  the 
 coins  and  in  the  inscription  from  Priene, 
 as  well  as  in  Polybius,  Aelian,  and 
 Athenaeus.  Diodorus  Siculus  appears 
 to  fluctuate  between  'Opo<pepv7]s    and 
 
 'O\o<pepvr]s.  Probably  the  Aramaic 
 original  of  Judith  spelt  the  name  with 
 I  for  r.  The  aspirate  may  be  regarded 
 as  a  mere  corruption,  arising  from  a 
 recollection  of  compounds  in  oKo-. 
 
 E.  L.  Hicks. 
 
Lja\flord ■''* 
 
 PAMPHIET  BINDER 
 
 ^^  Syracuse,  N.  Y. 
 
 ZI^   Sfockfon,  Colif. 
 
 DATE  DUE 
 
esi  735.4  .H63 
 Jucfilh  and  Holofernes 
 
 H^lfc 
 
 m'i.  n^i