THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS library H 8 > 15 j (> The person charging this material is re- sponsible for its return on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. University of Illinois Library W ■( ^ '959 9 HAY 7 1969 L161— 0-1096 Digitized by the Internet Archive | in 2016 ^-■\r ^i:. - "'t li. ^•v https://archive.org/details/judaismatromebc700huid_0 JUDAISM AT KOME B.C. 76 TO A.D. 140. BY EEEDEEIC HUIDEKOPEE. /'f f^JXT/r EDITION. NEW YOEK: DAVID G. FRANCIS. 1885. Copyright, 1876. By FREDERIC HUIDEKOPER. John Wilson and Son, Cambridge. 2 .» ^ ■ H ^ 7 ^' 6 PEEFACE. Many years ago the writer of this collected some ex- tracts from Christian anticipations of Eonie'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 Eoman 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 liave 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.^ Greeks held intercoiirse^with India long before and after the Christian era.^ How far the better features of the Civil or Eoman Law resulted from monotheistic influence would be an interest- ing, and might prove a copious question. Among 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.^ 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.^ 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. nary 10, 1877. ^ 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. Montfaucon cites such nu- merals {Palaeogi'aph, Groec. 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. ^ 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 {Emhassy, 40) concerning Julia, half a century later, seems unaccountable, if the charges against PKEFACE. 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 througli inadvertence or to save readers the need of recurring to it. To Professors Cary of Meadville, and Abbot of Cam- bridge, my tlianks 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 issuing this fiftli edition of his work, the author would state tliat his belief — somewhat cautiously ex- pressed in its pages — as to the monotheistic origin of Greek Culture has become an undoubting conviction. As regards decadence of civilization in Italv, he would date it from B. c. 18, when tlie friends of improvement were driven from tlie Senate, and when that body fell under the control of reactionaries. Thenceforward civ- ilization stood at disadvantage ; the law-making power was in the hands of its enemies, the course of society was downwards, and though this tendency met with an occasional check from some of tlie better emperors, yet within two centuries it landed the community in that ignorance and brutality, that barbarism, which pervaded Italy under Marc Antonine and his son Commodus. To the deification of Augustus a separate heading ought to her found credence in the community where he lived. The unreserved intercourse of cousins may have been seized upon as the means of murder- ing one and cruelly injuring the other. VI PREFACE. have been given. It was a political stroke which greatly aided reactionaries (see p. 7) in murdering the friends of justice and of improvement. As a literary question the perversion of the Erythraean Verses by Virgil ^ claims attention from teachers of Latin. Those verses — deposited by the Senate in its archives, and of which numerous copies circulated in the commu- nity — had proved a thorn in the side of Patricians. In B. c. 12 they collected and burned two thousand copies of them and of their imitations, forbidding any one under death penalty® to read them. These verses originated the view that A^meas, a ''genuine monotheist,” founded the Latin kingdom. The iEneid was intended to trans- form the " genuine monotheist,” the " chaste ^neas,” into a licentious pagan, a patron of prize fights and of polythe- istic customs. In Virgil’s day his intention to parody these verses must have been obvious.'^ Meadville, Pa., November 17, 1882. ^ See pages mentioned in Note A, footnote 21% and compare Indirect Testimony, p. 82. ® See Ch. VII., notes 65, 67, 68. Six ancient writers (cited in LeMaire’s Virgil, vol. 7 , pp. 282, 323, 324) state that Virgil on his death -bed and in his will ordered a de- struction of his iEneid. He had doubtless become ashamed of it, know- ing, as he must, that it would disgust the improvement party, who, even it they distrusted the Erythnean verses, would not sympathize with a burlesque upon moral teaching. The feeling of that party was perhaps expressed by Caligula (see p. 203, note 55) in his proposal to banish Virgil’s busts from public libraries. The author’s wishes were disre- garded, and his jEneid was published. • TABLE OF CONTENTS. ' • ■ CHAPTER I. ANCIENT JUDAISM. Section . . I. Its field for Growth 1 II. Its First lMPf:DiM ENT . 2 III. The Roman Aristocracy its Chief Enemy .... 5 IV. They oppose its Associate, Greek Culture ... 11 V. Close of Jewish Influence in Europe 14 CHAPTER II. * CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. I. Chief Causes 16 1. Jews recognized a Divine Being who took interest in the Moral Education of Mankind 17 Heathen Deities were regarded as devoid of such Interest . 18 2. Tlie 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 26 4. ' The average Character of Jews superior to that of Heathens 27 II. Accessories and Hindrances 32 1. Ceremonial Law 32 2. Offerings for the Temple 33 3. Popular Rights 35 4. Relative Antiquity of Monotheism and Idolatry . . .35 5. Sibylla 36 6. Astrology and Soothsaying 38 7. Mechanical Skill aided Jewish Influence .... 40 ■ . 8. Absence of Political Control ; its Effect on Hellenistic Jews . 40 CHAPTER III. JEWISH INFLUENCE ORIGINATES THE STOICS. I. Greek Stoics 40 II. Roman Stoics 54 vm CONTENTS, CHAPTER IV. JEWISH DIVISION INTO WEEKS. I. Adopted by Heathens 66 II. Numbering and Nomenclature of the Days ... 68 III. Lord’s Day CHAPTER V. AFFILIATED QUESTIONS. I. Public Games 71 II. War . . . ' 82 HI. 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 IX. 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. 76. The Erythr^an 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. Cacsar’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 burlesques part OF THE Erythr^an 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 CHRISPs 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. The Reign of Vespasian a Coalition. That OF Titus favors Reaction 270 II. , A. D. 81 -.96. Domitian. Expulsion of IMonotheism . 275 HI. a. D. 96-98. Nerva 286 IV. Position. ABOUT the Close of the First Century . . 286 X CONTENTS, 1. Senatorial Families 286 2. Corruption of the Judiciary . . , . . . • 287 3. Extinction of Oracles discussed by Lamprias . . . 287 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 Be Oratot'ibm . 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 ' * CHAPTEE XI. . EFFECTS OF THE JEWISH REVOLT UNDER HADRIAN. I. Direct Effects 330 1. Gnostics, or Anti-Jewish Christians 331 2. Heathen Names affixed to Jewish Documents . . . 336 3. Gentile Evidence substituted for Jewish in Acts of Pilate . 342 4. Embittermeiit of Semi-Jewish Christians against Jews . 342 II. Indirect Effects 344 1. Extravagant Use of the Old Testament . . . . ' 344 2. Antitheses of Irenaeus * 349 4. Jesus deified as subordinate God of the Old Testament . ♦ 349 CHAPTER XII. CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 138-180. I. A. D. 138-161. Antoninus Pius 859 II. A. D. 161-180. Marcus Antoninus 360 CHAPTEE XIII. HUMAN CULTURE. I. 'Moral, Literary, and Mental 363 II. /Esthetic Culture, or Refinement 371 III. Industrial Culture 876 IV. Greek Culture a Result of Monotheism .... 882 V. The Dark Ages 887 CONTENTS. XI CHAPTER XIV. MONOTHEISM. I. Tts Origin '. * 388 1. Whether inherent in mankind . '. . . . 388 ' 2. Or due to Reasoning . ' 390 3. Or to Revelation . • 390 II. Judaism a Preparation for Christianity .... 394 APPENDIX. NOTE A. SIBYLLINE BOOKS. I; CuM^AN B.c. 461- B. c.^83; A Patrician Forgery . . . 395 II. Verses from Erytiir^. b. c. 76 . . . . . . 402 Part A. Monotheism taught. Heathenism decried . . . 405 B. IMosaic History until the Flood 411 C. Man’s History from the Flood until the Rise of Idolatry 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 III. Sibylline Compositions, b. c. 75 - a. d. 200, were Jewish . 434 IV. Christian Compositions -were later than a. d. 200 . 441 V. Additional Remarks 446 '1. Origin of diiferent 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 per\"erted 448 5. Christians in Second Century claim a non-Jewish Origin for Sibylline Writings 449 6. 'Causes of present Confusion in Sib}dline Productions . 449 7. Verses denouncing Rome are not earlier than b. c. 63 . . 450 8. Copies of Erythrjpan Verses rare in A. d. 400 . . . 450 9. The supposed Writing on Leaves 450 VI. Patrician Opposition Likes 451 VII. Quotations by Lactantius *. 453 VIII. A Query concerning Bacis 454 IX. Hystaspes • . « . . • . • 459 Xll CONTENTS. NOTE B. MEANING OF CERTAIN WORDS. I. Words used by Jews and Christians 460 1. Seoae^eca 460 2. ^ deocrep-qs^^ . ... . • . 462 ,3. Oeoae^eLU 464 , 4. evcri^eia , 465 5. evcre^qs • 466 6. evae^elv 467 7. dge^eLa, 5ucr(r^/3e(.a, dvo/jLia 467 8. dae^rjs, 5i'cro'ej3??s, dvofxos 468 9. dcFe^elv 469 10. aipeLVy TrpodKVvuv 469 11. aepdpeifos, ^ojSoiz/xex'os 471 12. dovXos 471 13. \aoi 472 II. Tei^ms applied by Heathens to Jews or Christians , 472 1. Foreign Superstition, or Foreign Rites .... 472 ’ 2. d6eoL, dae^ELS 473 3. yipos 474 NOTE C. DELATORES, — PROSECUTORS ON SHARES 475 . ’ . . NOTE E. ' BOOK OF ENOCH. I. Its tavo Chief Objects . . . , . . . . 482 II. The Judgment . 483 III. Thp: Planets. 484 IV. Punishment of 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 by Jews 493 III. As HELD BY Christians , 499 CONTENTS. Xlll NOTE G. TIBERIUS. I. His CiiAiiACTER II. His Retirement to Capke^e III. Patrician Revolt of a. d. 31 IV. Social Results of the Rebellion V. Tacitus falsifies History • * NOTE H. EGYPTIAN WORSHIP AT ROME NOTE I. JEWISH REVOLT UNDER NERO. I. Outline op its Course II. Causes of the Revolt III. Florus . . . ^ IV. - Josephus .... * V. Agrippa and Berenice VI. The Christians NOTE J. TWO MODERN WORKS. I. Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography II. Gibbon 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. His 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 6. He uses the Term “ Lucifer” 6. His “Soul of the World” 7. He calls the Deity Father (in the Sense of Originator) 3. His View of Gods in their Judicial Capacity . 504 518 522 531 534 542 545 549 551 553 560 560 561 561 565 565 565 560 566 567 568 568 568 569 570 570 571 571 571 xiv CONTENTS. 9. His View of a Future Life 672 10. His View of the Origin of Motion 673 11. His View of the Character of Gods 676 12. His Panacea was Force. . . . . . . . .676 13. Obscurity of his Language 679 III. Heraclitus, Predecessor of the Stoics .... 580 ^NOTE L. TWO NARRATIVES IN GENESIS I. -XI 581 NOTE M. LOCALITY OP 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 cominunities amid which they dwell. Their religion has no advantage over Christianity, either as regards its accordance with reason, its adaptation to liuman 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 New Testa- ment, and from addresses or allusions to them, which im- ply their existence as a well-recognized class.^ 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- 1 See note 34 ; Note B, footnotes 43, 44 j Ch. XIII. note 39 ; com- pare Ch. lY. JUDAISM AT ROME. 2 [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 Euler gave encouragement to, and sense of responsibil- ity for, a right use of life. Intellectual and social devel- 0}>ment became most marked in those Gentile communities where Jewish infiuence was greatest. § II. Its First Impediment, A difficulty experienced by modern missionaries in heathen lands ^ 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 autliority, 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. Lov/rie, 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-te. I never use the term now, having uniformly found that the people supposed I meant their own Shang-te.” — Ihid., p. 421. “We [the convention] were stopped by a question, . . . ‘What is the proper word for God in Chinese ? ’ Monison 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 foi’ 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 Shind 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. Shangde ITS FIRST IMPEDIMENT. 3 §n.] first efforts. Tlie 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 Cliina, 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 be God,’ etc., ‘The un- known God, him declai-e I unto you,’ etc. In fact there are many verses where the j)oint and emphasis rest on the use of the same generic word all througli, as in John 10 , 3 "), 30 , 1 Cor. 8, 0 , etc. Hence of late many of the missionai'ies wish to return to the old word. . , . Dr. iMedhurst, however, . . . printed a book of nearly three hundred pages, in which he maintains that sldn never means god, much less the Supreme God. This, by the way, is in opposition to three dictionaries of his own, ])ublished in the last ten years. . . . We went on with the revision very well, till we came to Matt. 1 , 23 , where the word Theos occurs. Dr. Bridgman then j)i'oposed 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 question for three weeks, ^ledhurst 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. ISIedhurst . . . 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. ^led- hurst and J\Ir. Stronach will 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 GutzlalF 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, ‘AVhat 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 onl}^ one.” — Ibid., I>p. 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 nonn 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 Ko- man would equally have understood the word " god ” as meaning ANY divine being.^ 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.^ ^ 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 irdvres regard THEM as imperishable.’” — Plutarch, De Stoic. Rcpuynant. 38 ; 0pp. 10, 346. Again, “ That evil should take place according to the prior design irpovoLav 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. StoicoSy 14 ; 0pp. 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. IT. note 3. Compare, on the foregoing subject, Norton, GenuinenesSy 3, Note D, as also article by Ezra Abbot in the Christian Examiner, 45, 389 - 406. ^ The Jewish writers in the Sibylline Oracles term the Deity the “Great God,” Oeos piyas, 1, 53; 2, 27; 3, 19, 97, 162, 194, 246, 284, 297, 306, 490, 549, 556, 5.17, 565, 575, 584, 593 ; 4, 6, 25, 162 ; 7, 24 ; the “True God,” 0e6s d\r)dLv6^y Proem, 2,46 (other editions 84) ; the “Highest,” {j\f/i(TroSy Proem, 1,4; “Sole Ruler,” fiompxos, 3, 11; the “ Unborn,” dy€U7)Tos, Proem, 1, 7, 17 ; the “ Self-born,” avToyevrjs, Proem, 1, 17; the “Invisible,” doparos. Proem, 1, 8, Book 3, 12; “All-ruler,” TraPTOKpdriopy Proem, 1, 8 ; “Imperishable,” acpOtros, 5, 358 ; “Indestructible,” d(pdapros, 2, 285 ; the “Creator,” Kria-Tyjs, Proem, 2, 17, Book 1, 45; the “ Forefatlier,” yeveTijp, 3, 278, 296 ; 5, 284, 360, THE ARISTOCRACY ITS CHIEF ENEMY. 5 §in.] § III. The Aristocracy its Chief Enemy. After Judaism had become a recognized force in the Eoman community, and after party lines had been dis- tinctly drawn, — forcing it into a yet closer connection with the popular ])arty than its teachings alone would im- ply, — its trials were, as a rule, in periods of aristocratic success, and its palmy periods in times of aristocratic reverses. Exceptions to this occur. But the exceptions may have resulted from laws passed during aristocratic ascendency, or liave been caused by aristocratic intrigue. The Senate, before it was remodelled by Julius Caesar, and again after B. c. 17, when monotheism and liberal political views were expurgated from it, was the zealous, thougli not always discreet or consistent advocate of the established religion. The reason for this is obvious. The established religion was exclusively* under Senatorial con- trol, 'and was managed in the Senatorial interest. The popular party, whether from correct views of human rights or as a protest against Senatorial assumption, wished apparently to legalize any religion whose teaching or management was independent of Senatorial records or action.^ The hold which any one of these religions had on the popular mind is a different question. Judaism was, prior to Christianity, the only religion known at Eorne which appealed to moral sense and interested itself with man’s moral improvement. This was a feature to which its less intelligent or less honest advocates did not always give due prominence. They were not competent to appreciate it. The Senate, without appreciating it, found in the developed moral sense of the community their chief cause of fear. 400 ; 8 , 22; tlie ‘‘Ineffable,” or else the “Destitute of Oracles,” dde(T. The argument of Agrippa is in Dio Cass. 52, 2 - 13 ; that of ^foece- 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 iis 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 ^hecenas suggest an expurgation of the Senate, etlected by his enemies at a date which ended his political caiver. “Between r. 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 ^hecenas may be consid- ered as then at an end.” — Smith, Diet, of Gr. and Rom. Biog. 2, It will bi 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 affairs was due, doubt- less, to their affinity with those exponents of Greek cul- ture who had borrowed most from J udaism. 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 Eome, 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.^^ 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- tiohed date. § V. Close of Jewish Influence in Huroi^e. A benevolent law of Domitian or ISTerva 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, 8) to have advocated hu- mane measures as well as Greek literature. That Tacitus (An. 14, 58 ), by terming the leisure of Maecenas velut peregrinum, meant to stigmatize it as anti- Roman and unpatriotic, is more than probable. “ I call your attention to those Stoics, who, excluded repuhlica 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 ; 0pp. Philos. 2, 130 . Smith, Did. of Antiq. 202, col. 2, art. Bihliothecci. §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 liistory of the second century as one of the noteworthy contests in the world’s history ; yet liistorianshave scarcely mentioned or alluded to this remarkable struggle. After its termi- nation the inhuence of Jews in Europe was at an end. Tlienceforward they were an isolated people, unappre- ciated, and too often calumniated or maltreated, whilst, no doubt, they sufTered 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.^ In Africa also it must liave attracted attention in the third century if not later.^ ^ ^lohainmedans have not only adopted many Jewish opinions, but at least one Jewish custom, that of abstinence from pork. The Oriental Church, according to Routh {Rcliq. SacrcCy 1, 343, note), imitates Jews in forbidding the eating of blood. Tertulliau mentions (Adv. JiidcvoSj 1 ; Oj)p. 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. Commodiauus also cannot have written earlier than the third century. He was not an Asiatic, forhe 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' mercifid to you, whom outside you deny ? You go outside, you again seek [heathen] temples. You wish, between each, to live, but will thereby perish.” Com modi anus, 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 nan'ate to you only the marvellous.” Commodianus, 37, 1-13. 16 JUDAISM AT HOME. [CH. II. During the whole period when Jews exercised an in- fluence at Eome, even when most favored, tliere is no evidence that tliey 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 Cmsarea, 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.^^ CHAPTEK 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. See Appendix, Note I. foot-note 3. CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 17 § I* l.J 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, ^ which was addressed to his moral sense.^ 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 j but in the Ftoman 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, Wovks^ 1, 278 . “Human- ity, in fine, and especially in its growing cultivation, is too hard a lot, it a])pears to me, if God has not opened for it the fountains of revelation.” — Dewey, Works, 3, 2r)G. 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. 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. Accordingly, 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 taste 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 lor 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,^ nor Avere questions in morality, so far as records exist, ever addressed to their oracles.^ 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.” — Channing, TForks, 3, 335, 336. ^ Omens were deemed luchy or unlucky. They betokened divine IVivor or disffivor, 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 Avere 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 makes Cotta, the Roman high-priest, 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. Rut NO one ea^er at- tributed [human] virtue to a divine power, as if it had been received.” Dc Nat. Deorum. 3, 36. The connection fairly implies not only tlxat 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 ivill then he free from all [improper'] desires luhen you, shall hare 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 Avhisper 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. ^ 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, . . . CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 19 § I. 1-] by tradition and popular belief,^ but by some intelligent men, would have rendered them unfit associates in a decent family.^ They were thought willing to favor vice and crime when sufficiently paid for it, and wrong-doers the erection of temples, sacrifices and other sei-vices to the gods, demons, and heroes ; likewise the rites of the dead and what other ceremonies should be gone through, with a view to their propitiation. ... Nor would we employ any other interpreter than that of the country, . . . this god being the natural interpreter to all men about such matters.” — Plato, RepuhliCy 4 , .% Bohn’s trans. 2 , 111. (Ast, 4 , 208.) ^ 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 , 50, 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,” avayKa(TT€ov, 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, 3.) ; 2 , 10 ; 3 , 3, 11, 18, 22, 25, 20 ; 4 , 1, 2, c) fumish other speci- mens. The Hymn of Cleanthes, belonging to a different literature, will be mentioned in the next chapter. ® “There is a treatise of Servius Sulpitius, a prominent man [entitled] Quamobrem inensa liiiquenda iwu 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, Xat. Hist. 28 , 5, A, 5. Compare touching Pliny’s I)osition, 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 aftairs are determined by fate and immutable 20 JUDAISM AT KOME. [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.^ 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 Eeligious 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.® 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, 32 . In the foregoing an immutable fate seems to be regarded as the opposite of divine indifference towards mortals. Com^jare in Ch. X. iv. 10, quotation by Plutarch from the Iliad, 24, lines 525, 526, and also his first quotation from Euripides. After the above w^as written, I 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, 8, Bohn’s trans. These re- marks are put by Plato into the mouth of an objector. ^ The earliest Christian assemblies copied from the synagogue their method of conducting religious meetings. In fact the more Jewish Christians must frequently have worshipped with the non-Christian CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 21 § 1 . 2 .] These services must have been imperfect, for they were conducted by human beings, yet the heatlien wlio entered wlien a thoughtful Jew was reading, might listen to views wliich the range of lieatlien literature nowhere presented, — to the idea that God was to be served by justice and kindness towards our fellows, and by main- taining a riglit frame of mind;^ that this was the service Jews ill the same place of gathering. Any decided difference in the method of conducting such meetings would have occa.sioned disagi-ee- ments, and left obvious traces. ^ “ What doth the Lord reipiire of tliee but to do justly, to love meicy, 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 die name of thy God : I am the Lord. . “ Thou shalt not defraud thy neigh l)or, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morn- ing. Thou shalt not cur.se the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but shalt fear thy God : 1 am the Lord. “ Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judginent ; thou shalt not [in giv- • iiig 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 thy.self: I am the Lord. — Leviticus, 19 , 0 - 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 3 ’our God. “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in mete^^ard, in weight, 22 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. II. wliicli 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 epliah, 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 LoiM.” — Iieviticus, 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, 17-19. 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, O 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, Noyces 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 I Deliver the poor and the destitute ; Save them from the hand of the wicked I ” Ps, S2, 2-4, Noyes’s Translation. § I. 2.] CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 23 devout aspirations.^^ Heathen literature contained noth- ing which resembled it. 10 Lord is merciful and kind, Slow to anger and rich in mercy.” Ps. 103, 8, Noyes’s TranslatioTv. 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. 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, 18. 24 JUDAISM AT EOME. [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^^ would make many. This might and probably did lead to separate religious assemblies, 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 ’ 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 he 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, 2-2), 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 Wvei Gentile community the Fearer-of-God, who does rightly, is accepted hy 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. Synagogues are mentioned (Acts, 6, 9 ) of Libertinos, 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. § 1 . 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.^^ Much of what passed among heatliens for practical religion — namely, augury or divination — he would find to be merely fortune-telling under another name,^^ while other rites and ceremonies were mainly directed towards appeasing a not very good-tempered race of beings, 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 or with human improvement. 13 “We do 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. Keligion 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, Diet, of Antiq. 907 , 998 , art. Sacerdos. Compare note 3. 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 they will eventuate most favorably.”— Xenophon, Memorabilia, 4 , 3, 12. Compare argument of Quintus Cicero in Ch. III. note 67. 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 thi^ view of religion, and compare it with his views of the gods already given in note 6 of the present chapter. Views of Xenophon and Plato concerning the gods will be found in 2 26 JUDAISM AT EOME. [CH. II. 3. In proportion to human development is the desire for a FUTURE EXISTENCE, the fitting sequel of oiir present tlie Appendix, Note K, § i. 4, and § ii. 11. Xenophon in his Memo- rahilia, 4, 6, 2 - 4, makes Socrates explain that piety ^ or practical rec- ognition of the gods, evae^eiay 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 cha]3ter, 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 ? ” — Memorahilia, 4, 3, 16. Else- where, again, Xenophon states {Memorabilia, 1, 3, l) that Socrates “re- garded as superserviceable and vain those who did otherwise,” that is, who devoted to the gods piore 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 Laws, 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 wdll 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, Bohn’s trans. 5, 312, 313. (Ast’s edit. 7,99, lOO). Again, “Let this law be established, that Biiav . . . 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- CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 27 § 1 . 4 .] one.^'^ 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 Eoman 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, whetlier human or divine, must, as a rule, rise above those who have no such privilege.^® The presence jects] shall be removed.” — Laws, 10, 15 (Ast’s edit. 7, 298; Bohn’s trans. 5, 454). It is insupposable that Plato deemed heligious ser- vices an aid to moral sense. Compare note 4. A future state, unadapted to human improvement or happiness, would lack attraction, and might be repulsive. The Buddhist view of w’earisome 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. 1® 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 Ecdcsiasticus, 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 com])assion 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 silv^er 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, 2-11. 28 JUDAISM AT KOME. [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 done, or good left undone, must have strengtliened 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 lioman 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. Jewush writings treat moral laws, as if their binding character required no ai:- gumentd^ This is not the tone — certainly not the pre- vailing one — of heathens, unless of such as had been infiuenced by moriotheism.^^ See quoted in the Appendix, I^ote A, § viii., 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. 29 A writer such as Dio Cdirysostom, 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 Demonicuvi, 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 iiot do what you w^uld find CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 29 § I* 4.] Jewish phraseology has, what secular Greek and Lat- in, prior to monotheistic influence, lacked, — a term for conscience.^^ This does not imply tliat 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 si)reading. Jews and their converts must have measured them- selves by a higlier standard of morality than that estab- lished among heathens. Tliis is evinced by tlieir ideas of practical monotheism.^^ fault witli in others.” — Ad Demon, in Groec. Majora, 1, l.V). Exercise self-control [touching] all those things, — gain, anger, pleasure, grief, — whereby it is base that the soul should be masteretl. But you will be such [a man] ... if, when angiy, you behave towards offenders as you would deem pi’oper that others should behave towards yourself when you offend.” — Ad Demon, in Groce. Majora, 1,* l.'/;. Subse(piently 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 Grocc. Majora^ 1, 157. This same rule is put by Xenophon 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.” — Memorahil. 2, 6, 35. 21 The Jews used a-vyeidTjo-Ls in the sense of conscience. In secular Greek it meant merely consciousness of anything whatever. Passow gives conseienee as a second definition, but supports it only hy reference to quotations in Stobceus, a writer as late as the tenth century. The Lexicon of Facciolati and Forcellini gives conscience 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 Rome. 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 deoo-^^eiav monotheism — with good works.” — 1 Tim. 2, s~io. In Proverbs, 8, 13, likewise' we have it stated : “Monotheism {4>j(3os icvpiov) hates injustice.” And by 30 JUDAISM AT HOME. [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 stroiig.^^ Tacitus, a defamer 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.^^ Pliny, in his Panegyric, while stating that indecencies, customary at heathen entertainments, w^ere excluded from Trajan’s table, enables us to perceive that Jewish enter- tainments were conducted yet more strictly than the emperor’s.^^ The brutalizing and otherwise demoralizing public games of heathenism were regarded by Jews and recognized Sirach, 1, l “Monotheism ((pogeiadai t6v 6ebv) is the first step in [moral] wisdom.” Compare views of wisdom in Ch. III. note 25. On the words translated “monotheism,” see Appendix, Note B, § i. Nos. 1 and II. Cicero wrote to his brother Quintus, ^\h.o 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 rul^r, but [that] IN wuncH reason and diligence effect most. ... To you is given the utmost peace, the utmost trampiillity, in such degree as might overcome a sleepy governor or delight a vigilant one.” — Cicero, Ad Fra- trcm, 1, I ; Epist. 3, 529, 5c0. Tacitus tells us {An. 13, 35) that the troops in Syria had even for- gotten how 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 ( Fit. 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 bulfoonery attend the Prince’s table, but benignant prompting, refined jests, respect for scholarship.” — Pliny, Panegyric, 49, 8. 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. CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 31 § I. 4.] by heathens as essentially anti-Jewish.^^ In fact after the contest became sharp between Judaism and Heathenism at Home, 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.^" At Eome penal enactments existed against celibacy, and legal priv- ileges for parents of several children.^^ Heathen writers complain of, or ridicule, the mutability of the married state.2^ We do not find the same condition of things de- picted among Jews by their own moralists, or objected to According to J osephus, when Herod the Great, in the time of Au- gustus, introduced games of this character into the city of Caesarea, 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- fiil of human beings, and heathenish to exchange the divine ordinances {decTixoTjs) for foreign usages.” — Josephus, Antiq. 15, 8, 1. Compare on thissubject in Ch. X. notes 57, 58, 59, 60. Quotations in the last two of these imply, or accord with, the view, that opposition by any one to such games excited mistrust of his fidelity to the patrician party and to the established religion. See Smith, Diet, of Antiq. pp. 604 - 606, art. Iletcerce. “In order to promote marriage, various penalties were imposed on . . . celibacy. . . . “ By the Lex Papia Poppexa a candidate who had several children was preferred to one who had fewer. . . . Freedmen who had a certain num- ber of children were Ireed . . . and libertee [freed women] who had four children were released from the tutela [guardianship] of their patrons. . . . Those who had three children living at Home, [or] four in Italy, and [or] five in the provinces, were excused from the office of tutor or curator. . . . The lex also imposed penalties on orbi^ that is, married persons who had no children.”— Smith’s Diet, of Antiq. p. 692. 29 << woman blush at divorce when some who are illustrious, and of rank, count their years, not by the [annual] consulships, but by the number of their husbands.” — Seneca, De Bcnefic. 3, 16, 2. “ Thus she has eight -husbands in five autumns.” — Juvenal, Satire 6, 220, 230. “It is not more, certainly, than thirty days, and Thelesina is marrying her tenth husband.”— Martial, Epigram 6, 7. 32 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. II. them by their Christian or heathen opponents. The in- crease of Jews, moreover, testifies to a general appreciation among them of the family relation, while, in Italy at least, a perpetual immigration, without increase, of heathen population implies, that by these latter it was not ap- preciated § II. Accessories and Hindrances. 1. First, certainly, among hindrances to the spread of Judaism was, if we can trust evidence, the Ceremonial Law, which must here be understood in its widest sense as including all supposed commands of the Deity or of tradition, concerning observances or abstinences, not calculated to subserve moral ends. There may indeed have been weak-minded heathens, who, in proportion as they could discern no object for an observance, imagined it to be above human comprehension. There may, too, have been dishonest ones, thankful to impose on their consciences by substituting ceremonial observance instead of right living. But heathens of the better and thought- ful class found the Ceremonial Law, or some portions of it, a serious obstacle in the way of accepting Judaism. Born Jews had from childhood been familiarized to this law, so that they questioned less concerning it. Some even may have had it intertwined with early associations from which they would have regretted to part.^^ Sugges- tions as to its origin will be elsewhere offered.^^ Habits, essentially unimportant, may by association become almost indispensable to particular frames of mind or feeling. Two elderly ladies in different localities of Europe told me that they did not disap- prove embroidery, then common as a Sunday occupation, but, owing to early formed habits, found it repugnant. To knitting they had been accustomed, and in one, at least, of these two cases, a removal of the knitting would unquestionably have interfered with Sunday thoughts. When the needles began to move Sunday-quiet settled upon the counte- nance. A special locality or particular strain or familiar verse, mean- ingless to one person, may unfailingly awaken in another some train of thought. A considerate man will not needlessly destroy a neighbor’s cherished associations. Yet, if these are of a kind to impede moral sense, their propagation must be counteracted. See Ch. XIV. notes 8-12, and the text prefixed to them. ACCESSORIES AND HINDRANCES. 33 § II. 2.] 2. Another feature had become blended with Judaism which must have awakened, or nurtured, antipathy or mistrust on the part of many right-minded heathens, and by wrong-minded ones would be used as a weapon against the Jews. The offerings collected for the Temple at Jerusalem were, at least in times of excitement, so enor- mous as inevitably to tempt cupidity. Unprincipled Jews and heathens must have discovered in them a means of filling their pockets, so that no small share of such offerings may never have reached Jerusalem.^ The portion which arrived there cannot but have rendered tlie Temple attractive to money-lovers, and an unfavorable place, in many respects, for studying Jewish morality. Cicero states (Fro Flacco^ 28) that gold was annually carried from Italy and from every Roman province to Jerusalem. He specifies that under the directions of Flaccus there had been seized of this gold at Apamea, in Asia Minor, one hundred pounds’ weight (more than $25,000) ; at Laodicea, twenty pounds; and mentions other seizures without the amounts. If we assume what is scarcely probable, that no portion of these Temple gifts escaped the rapacity of Flaccus, yet, con- sidering the comparative scarcity at that date of the precious metals, the contributions in some localities must have been enormous. Pilate, according to Josephus {Antiq. 18, 3, 2), found sacred money at Jerusa- lem in quantity sufficient to sui)ply the city with water. Whether his aqueduct was, as that writer states, two hundred furlongs (that is twenty- fiVe miles) long is a point concerning which his habitual exaggeration may lead us to doubt. The same historian specifies (JVarSj 5, 5,3, 4, (;) 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. 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 ? ” 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, and lose pa- tience with importunity addressed to himself by such as mistook othcious and objectless activity for pious zeal. Non-ritualist Jews, if consistent, disapproved these Temple offerings and the sacrifices to which a portion of them ministered.^® In their own synagogues, heathen listeners received a welcome. From the Temple they were excluded.®^ 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,®® little known to heathens is written, ‘ My house shall he a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘ robbers-cave.’” — Matthew, 21, 13. Philo, in his treatise on the virtues and office of ambassadors, otherwise called. The Embassy to Caius^ Ch. 40, mentions costly gifts contributed by Julia, the daughter of Augustus. 36 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, 27-29, in Appendix, Note A, § ii. Part A, and § viii. 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. Inscriptions on its pillars (Josephus, TFars, 5, 5, 2) forbade en- trance to foreigners. Jerusalem, ruled by an ecclesiastical aristocracy, and filled with a class (see Appendix, Note L, 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 CAUSES OF JE\VISH INFLUENCE. 35 § II- 4.] at a distance, cannot have materially interfered with the spread of Judaism. 3. The cause of Judaism at Eome, or wherever Roman 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.^^ It also advocated established usages, on which patrician privileges rested.^^ 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 J udaism 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, hut 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, n) 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 b}% but the punish- ment appropriate to sinners follows up the transgression of wrong-doers.” — Wisdom of Solomon, 14, 3i. “ Y"oii should not accustom your mouth to an oath.” — Sirach, 23, 9. “ The gods of the Roman state were the gods of patricians alone.” — Smith, Diet, of Antiq. p. 176, col. 2, art. Augur. Compare in Ch. YII. note 35, Cicero’s opinion that augury was kept up reipuhlicce causa for political reasons. The cause of “ the republic ” and of the Senate were, \n patrician language, identical. The. need of Delatoj'cs, or Prosecutors on Shares (see Appendix, Note C) was largely owing to patrician privileges. 36 JUDAISM AT KOME. [CH. II. political privileges, were zealous partisans of ancient usages.^^ 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 Eome, 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.^^ Tliis 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 Erytlir?e, 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 judgments must have found much in them which b,e- 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.^^ “You know the verse indited by a good poet, which is in every one’s mouth: ‘Eome, res Romana, stands because of old-fashioned customs and men.’ ” — Marc Antonine, Letter of, in the Historice Angustce ScriptoreSy p. 73, Leipsic edit. 1774 ; Avid. Cassius, Ch. 5. Cicero {De 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. See Juvenal, Satire 14, 96-1C6, cited in Ch. X. note 118. For account of this fabrication, see Appendix, Note A, § li. 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 yeais on all his creations, and that these corresponded to the twelve, so-called olkols 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 w'ere 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 brought forth ... and every winged fowl . . . the Fifth day. And said. Let the earth bring forth . . . four-footed beasts and creeping things. [ This fifth day is from the Septuagint.'] 38 JUDAISM AT KOME. [CH. II. counterfeited a connection with it, made their living by Astrology and Soothsaying.^^ In this direction they appear to have had a rivalry with the Egyptians/® 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. ^vppr]via. 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, ii, Lat. Vers. 45 They shall intensely suffer [unsatisfied desire], who for gain Shall basely turn soothsayers, jjrolonging [this] evil time, Wlio 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, 15, 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. Abraham, who it must be remembered was a Chaldsean, “ 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 Divinit}^ 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 §11.6.] CAUSES OF JEWISH INFLUENCE. 39 must have lasted till the time of Marc Antonine.^’^ Their opponents at Home speak of them in this respect, as in others, disparagingly,^^ yet the identification of the terms Astrologer and Chaldsean would indicate that pojjular 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.” — Porphyrius, vita Pythagoroe^ 14, Am- sterdam edit. 1707 (appended to lamblichus’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 Chaldaeans, so called, not from their })rofession, 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 are thought to have attained the same art during a lapse of time amounting to in- numerable ages.” — Cicero, De Divinat. 1 (1), 2. See Suidas, Lexicon, articles Arnuphis and Julian. The shower which relieved the army of Marc Antoiiine was by some attributed to the agency of Julian the Chahhean, and by others to Arnuphis the Egyptian. 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 Camoenae 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 Eg}^ptian 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. Eor 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 chic.kens, and the entrails of a pup ; sometimes also of a boy.” — Satire, 6, . 5 - 12 -') 52 . 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 Eome assigned, under the name of Augury or Auspices, to her chief citizens, placing them, in this respect, on a par with the refuse of J udaism. 7. If the Jews were, as Josephus claims (see Ch. IV. note 6; compare Ch. XIII. notes 27-29), the mechanics of the Iioman 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 favorable 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 Jew’s 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. § viii. and Ch. VIII. § in. 3. CHAPTER III. JEWISH INFLUENCE ORIGINATES THE STOICS. § I. Greek Stoics. Allusion has already been made to Jewdsh influence on Greek culture, a subject to w’hich 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 w^ho, in spite of their defects, have deserved and received the esteem of subsequent ages. INFLUENCE ON THE GREEK STOICS. 41 § 1 .] 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.^ The records of its history in Asia Minor at this date are scanty, but its strength there, two centuries later, ^ 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,^ who nominally taught monotheism. Their affinity to Ju- 1 In B. c. 332, wlien Alexandria, the commercial metropolis of Eg}"pt, was founded, it was laid off in three sections, of which one was appor- tioned to the Jews (Smith, Diet, of Gcog. 1, 1)7, 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, i r., col. 1) to Jews as to heathens. 2 See, in Ch. II. note 32, mention of contributions from Asia Minor to the Jewish Temple. ^ In Asia Minor and its islands were born : at Citium in Cyprus^ Zeno the earlier and Persajus ; at Assos in TroaSy Cieanthes ; at Soli in Qili~ ciob (though his father was a resident of Tarsus), Chrysippus and one Athenodorus ; at TarsuSy Zeno the later, one Antipater, two, apparently named Athenodorus, and in this city was the residence of Archede- mus ; in the island of ChioSy Aristo ; in the island of RlwdcSy Panai- tius ; in HicrapoliSy of Phmjgiay Ei)ictetus ; in Nicomedia, of Bithijniay Arrian. In Syria, Posidonius was born at Apammy though his residence, in mature life, was at Rhodes. One of the two Antipaters 'was born at Tyre. Diogenes, surnamed the Babylonian, was born at Seleada 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 Jew’s, or, if such men became Stoics, their language may have debarred Romans from acquaintance w ith their views. Chaeremon, librarian at Alexandria in the first half of the first century, was a Stoic. Where he originated seems unknowm. 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 Pioman imitators we find the belief in a King from the East,^ while their views were so antagonistic to heathen ones as to be called Paradoxes. Three of these men,^ 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 ^ “At nineteen years of age I entered upon citizenship, adliering to the sect of Pharisees, which is similar to the one called, among Greeks, StoicJ’* — Josephus, Life, § 2. “ The God of the Stoics is round (as Varro says), devoid of head, and circumcised.’^ — De Morte Claudii Ludus, 8; Seneca, 0pp. 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. ^ 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, hut according to the same work, 3, 1314, col. 1, and to Diogenes Laertius 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 Diet. (art. Cleanthes) about B. c. 300. Chrysippus, according to the same Avork (art. Chrysippus), AA’ashorn in B. c. 280, but according to Diogenes Laer- tius, {Chrysippus, 7), he died in the one hundred and forty- third Olym- ])iad, as late, therefore, as B. c. 139, after liAung 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.® The Jews believed that the heathen deities were doomed to perish. So did the Stoics.’^ The Jews taught that heathen temples should be avoided. The Stoics also decried temples.® The Jews maintained that efforts to represent the Di- vine Nature by images were absurd.® So did the Stoics,^® differing therein from other heathens. Such Greeks and Romans as believed in any gods seem to have attrib- uted to them a human form.^^ ® “In physics they (the Stoics) inclined to pantheism.” — New Am. Cyclopaedia, art. Stoics. Compare extracts from Seneca in note 61 of this chapter. ■J' “We know tliat 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. ® “ Blessed among men shall they on earth be . . . who reject all temples which they see.” — Sib. Or. 4, 21 - 27 . “ Men of Athens . . , God dwelleth not in temples made with hands.” — Acts, 17, 22 - 24. Compare Acts, 7,48, quoted in Ch. 11. 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, 0pp. 10, 280, edit. Reiske. “Zeno, founder of the Stoic sect, in his book on Civil Polity, says that temples and images should not be made, for that nothing artificial was worthy of the gods, [possibly Clement substituted tQ)v deCjv, of the gods, for rod Odov, 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 we 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 was of great worth and holy.’” — Clem. Alex. Strom. 5, 77. ^ “ 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. “Not from gold, not from silver ; from this material no image can be devised resembling God.” — Seneca, Epist. 31, lo. “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 HOME. [CH. III. J ews, excepting Sadducees, taught a resurrection. The Stoics did the same.^^ Jews taught a heavenly city. The Stoics imitated their phraseology^^ The Jews, at least in Asia Minor, taught, though at how early a date cannot easily be determined, a future conflagration of the world,^^ 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 ahe in hu- man FORM.” — Cicero, De Nat. Deorum^ 1 (18), 4G-48. 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 : . . . ‘ 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 [bodily] form where we now are.’” — Lactant. Inst. 7,23. Stoics “con- fess a re-embodiment of . . . souls . . . and that body does not commin- gle with body, but that there Avill be a resurrection.” — Fhilosophum. 1, 21, See also Josephus, cited in note 4. The non-commingling of bodies is perhaps, though not certainly, that which Athenagoras upheld (De Resurrect, cc. 6, 7), that if a human body be devoured by a beast the ])articles essential to its resurrection are not amalgamated with, but eliminated from, the beast. A fair inference from Acts 24, 15, is that some Jews restricted any resurrection to the just. Some must have held (Rev. 20, 14) that the v'icked existed only until the Renovation. Among Stoics, Clean thes maintained “that all souls endure till the conflagration, but Chry- sippus, that those only of the wdse [i. e. just].” — Diog. Laert. ZenOy 84. Compare Tatian, Orat, 6 ; also Dan. 12 , 2. “ The Stoics call heaven, peculiarly, a city.” — Clem. Alex. Strom. 4, 174, 0pp. 642. In Greek the term ttoKlv for city, and tt6\ov for heaven, differ by but one letter. “These (the Pharisees) . . . confess ... a future judgment and CONFLAGRATION.” — PhUosophum. 9, 28, p. 306, edit. Miller. See, quoted in Appendix, Note D, the book of Enoch, 1 , 6, with wdiich com- INFLUENCE ON THE GREEK STOICS. 45 §^0 new era. The Stoics also taught such a conflagration, and that a new era would be inaugurated by itd^ The Jews fixed the resurrection, or the final one, and the destruction of heathen deities, at the date of this conflagration. So did the Stoicsd® Indirect evidence renders probable that some Jews identified God and other spiritual natures with fired" pare the extract from Clement of Alexandria, already given in note 12. These views may have been prompted by sncli passages in the Old Testa- ment as the following : “ A fire . . . shall consume the cartli with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.” — Deut. 32, 22. “Our God shall come ... a fire shall devour before him.” — Ps. 50,3. Compare Ps. 97,3. “The hills melt and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world and all that dwell therein.” — Nahum. 1, 5 . “My messenger ... is like a refiner’s fire.” — Mai. 3, 1, 2. “The day cometh that shall burn ius an oven.” — Mai. 4, l. Compare Is. 9, H) ; 10, 17. 15 “The Stoics . . . expect a confliigration and purification of this world ; some a total, others a })artinl one.” — Philosophum. 1, 2I, jip. 26, 27. “ The Stoic philosophers arc of ojiinion that the whole universe shall be transformed (or cast) into lire, as into a seed, and that therefrom (or thereby) it will proceed (or be completed) in its adorninent as it origi- nally was.” —Eusebius, Prccparatio, 15, 18, quoted aiiparently from Nunienius. Compare the similar view of Heraclitus in Note K, § nr. Empedocles, to whom a like view is attributed, may have travelled in Jewish countries. See also Indirect Tcst'unon\f, last citation on p. 181. Some Jews seem to have taught two resurrections, one of the just, at the beginning of millennium, and another of the unjust, at its close. Those who held this twofold view must, as we may infer from their imi- tators among early Christians, have connected the judgment of men and of demons, or heathen deities, with the final resurrection. Those who held to but one resurrection, connected, doubtless, the judgment with that one. The judgment and conflagration were deemed concomitant. The views of Stoics will be found in notes 12, 18, and 50. Certain passages in the Old Testament could be misinterpreted as implying that the substance of God was fire, and certain writers or teachers in the first or second centuries, whose views of God and angels were chiefly borrowed from Jewish representations, treat fire as the sub- stance of the Deity or of his angels. In Deuteronomy, 4, 24, God is called^ a “ consuming fire ” ; and in Exodus, 3 , 2 , “the angel of the Lord (or in Exodus, 3, q “the Lord”) is repiesented as appearing 46 JUDAISM AT EOME. [CH. Ill, The Stoics, in speaking of their God, did, as is well known, the same.^^ Jewish teaching was prominently moral and practical. “in a flame of fire.’' The Writer to the Hebrews, using the Hebrew parallelism, speaks of God, “ Who makes the spirits his messengers. The FLAME OF FIRE his seiwants.” Heb. 1, 7. The word for messenger and for angel is identical in the original, and a comparison of verses 13, 14, in the same chapter, shows that the second line is used as an iteration of the first. The passage is a quotation, with, perhaps, alteration of meaning from Psalm 104, 4 (LXX. 103, <). The author of the Philosophumena says (10,33; p. 335, edit. Miller), “I confess that the angels are fire.” Elsewhere in that work, a heading is devoted to the Docetse, that is, to the class of Gnostics who regarded Christ as having only an appar- ent, not a real, body. They are represented as stating, concerning the God who made heaven and earth : “ Moses says that this irupivov deov^ fiery God [i. e. this God whose substance is fire], spoke from the bush.” Philosophumenai, p. 265, edit. Miller. The author of the Clementine Homilies, in a passage the details of which must have been partly imitated from the Book of Enoch, speaks of the angels (Horn. 8 , 13), as having, by their fall, lost or diminished their constituent element of fire, ra €k Trvpbs rpairevTa p^eXyj^ and treats their children, the giants (Horn. 8 , :s), as “mongrel in race [commingled], fire [i. e. spirit], of angels and soul of women.” The word for soul is here its synonyme ttiga, concerning which see Underworld Mission, pp. 91, 92, (87, 88). Chrysippus “ thinks that no one of the gods except Fire is im- perishable, but that all [others] have alike been born and will [there- fore?] perish. These positions are, to express it in one word, every- where alleged by him.” — Plutarch, De Stoic. Reg)ugnant. c. 38; {Og^p. 10, 31(i). The Stoics had several names for this sole imperishable, impersonal god. One of these names was Jupiter, as will be seen in the following extract : “Chrysippus and Cleanthes having, to express it in one word, included heaven, earth, air, and sea in the category of gods, have left no one of these imperishable, or everlasting, except Jupiter [by transforma- tion], into whom they use up all the others. . . . They say expressly that all the gods have been born and will perish by fire, being melted, according to them, as if of wax or tin.” — Plutarch, Adv. Stoic, c. 31 ; 10, 431, 432. On this use of the word Jupiter some comments will be added in the course of the present section. The Nabatheans south of Judsea, if we can trust Strabo {Geog. 16, 4, § 1 .] INFLUENCE ON THE GREEK STOICS. 47 So was that of the Stoics, which, in this respect, formed a marked contrast witli such other heathen literature as was not borrowed from themselves.^^ Jews taught a Trpovota, a providing and superintending care on tlie ]>art of the Deity which nothing in the uni- verse escaped.^^ The same idea, expressed by the same term, was a lavorite with Stoics.^^ The belief in a Moral Euler of tlie iinivei'se, omnijjresent and on wliom everything depended, caused in the Jewisli mind questions concerning the origin of evil,'*^^ especially of moral evil. If God were not its author, lie could not be author of all things, nor apparently even their con- troller. Yet to deem him its author was to shock moral 20, p. 784 ; or edit. Meiiieke, p. 1094, lines 10- 12), worshipped tlie sun, and would seem therefore to have shared the belief that the essence of the Divine Nature was fire. So, as is well known, did the Guebres of Persia. The Nabatheans, Guebres, and Stoics were all three in local contact with the Jews, but not with each other. It is more probable, therefore, that their belief spread, with or without corruption, from the Jews to themselves, than that it spread from one of themselves to nations and bodies wJio had little connection with its ]dace of origin. Cicero, in his Dc Ofliciis, looked to Stoic literature as his store- house. The article on Cicero in Smith, Diet, of Biog. 1, TSl, col. 2, after enumemting a list of Stoic writers from wliom he borrowed, adds : “ Notwithstanding the express declaration of Cicero to the contrary, we cannot, from internal evidence, avoid the conclusion, that the Greek authorities have, in not a few passages, been translated verbatim.” 20 “ Thy providence {Trpbvoia), 0 Father, pilots constantly.” — Wisd. of Sol. 14, 3. Elsewhere the same writer speaks of the Egyptians when darkness covered their land: These [would-be] escapers from eternal superintending care (irpSpoia) lay shut up under their roofs, chained by darkness and shackled by a long night. ” — Wisdom of Solomon, 17, -2. One book of Chrysippus was, according to Plutarch {De Stoic. Bepug- nant. c. 39 ; 0pp. 10, 34S), entitled irepl irpovoias, “Conceniing Provi- dence.” Cicero {Dc Nat. Deorum^ 1, S or 18) represents one of his speakers as ridiculing the irpbvoLa, or Providence of the Stoics. Compare, in this chapter, note 62, line 3, and conclusion of note 75 : also Plutarch, De Stoic. BiCpugnant. cc. 9, 21, 30, 31 (?), 34, 38 {0pp. 10, 284, 3m, 320, 334, 335 (?), 340, 342, .345) ; and Adv. Stoic, cc. 2, 14, 36 {0pp. 10,373, 306, 440). 2*^ “ Shall there be evil upon the city and Jehovah not have done it ?” Amos, 3, 6, Noyes’s trans. 48 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. III. sense.^ The Stoics, in borrowing from the Jews their views of God, received also this question.^^ Other heath- ens, who regarded their deities as limited beings capable of indifference, or malevolence towards men, or who disbe- lieved their existence, found in human suffering and sin no ground for such a query. The Jews used the term wisdom almost as a technical one to denote moral intelligence.^^ The same expression Exceptional Jews attribute this prompting of moral evil to God, others to Satan, others to fallen angels or to a man’s own heart. “ The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, ‘ Go number Israel.’ ” — 2 Sam. 24, 1. “Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel.” — 1 Chron. 21, 1. The Wisdom of Sirach tells us : “ You should not say that ‘ because of the Lord [planning it] I fell away.’ For will you not be doing what he hates ? You should not say that he misled me. . . . He placed before you fire and water. You stretch out your hand to which you wish. . . . He commanded no one to heathenize and has licensed no one to sin.” — Sirach, 15, 11-20. The utterance of James w^as not over a newly arisen question : “ Let no one, when tempted, say, ‘I am tempted of God.’ For God feels no temptation towards wrong, nor does he tempt any one. But the temptation of each one consists in his being drawn aside and entrapped by his own inclinations.” — James, 1, 13, 14. In the Appendix, Note D, will be found a view from the Jewish Book of Enoch, that evil was caused by unfaithful angels ; and in foot-note 9 of the same, some other writer’s indignant comment upon the supposition. 24 “ 0 Divine Being, NO xVCTION takes place without you on earth Nor in the divine ethereal heaven, nor on the sea, Except what the wicked accomplish by their senselessness. You ornament what is rude, and unlovely things are lovely to you ; For thus you have fitted all things into a whole, good things into evil ones.” Cleanthes, Hymn, lines 15-19. Compare Plutarch, Adv. Stoic, quoted in Ch, I. note 3. The accounts transmitted to us concerning Cleanthes as slow of mind, do not accord with the diction of this hymn and of extracts in Clement of Alexandria. Perhaps some more poetic mind may have embodied into it the ideas, and appended to it the name, of Cleanthes, or our accounts of him may be incorrect. 25 “ The fear of the Lord, that is wisdom and to depart from evil is understanding.” — Job, 28, 28 . “The mouth of the just bringeth forth §x.] INFLUENCE ON THE GREEK STOICS. 49 became prominent among the Stoics, but not among other heathens in the same sense.'^® In Jewish phraseology moral delinquency is not infre- wiSDOM.” — Proverbs, 10, 31. “Incline thine ear unto wisdom. . . . Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord. ... For the Lord giveth wisdom.” — Proverbs, 2, 2-0. “Wisdom crieth . . . they . . . did not choose the fear of the Lord. They would none of my counsel ; they de- ’ spised all my reproof.” — Proverbs, 1, 20-30. “Doth not wisdom cry . . . my mouth shall speak truth, and wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are in righteousness.” — Prov- erbs, 8 , 1-S. Compare Sirach, 1, IJ, quoted in Ch. II. note 22. In Prov- erbs, 8, 22 -31, wisdom is vividly j^ersonified as a companion of the Deity. 26 << I know, is plain to you, Lucilius, that no one can live hap- pily, nor even tolerably, without api)lying himself to wisdom and that a happy life is effected by perfect, a tolerable one by even incipient, wis- dom.” — Seneca, Epist. 16, 1. “Some have deemed the question proper concerning liberal studies whether they would make a man good. They do not even promise, nor aim at, a knowledge of this.” — Seneca, EjrusL 88, 2. Plutarch speaks of the Stoic wise man as transferred, in Stoic opinion, “from extreme wickedness to extreme virtue.” — Adv. Stoic, c. 8 10, 382). Cicero quotes Cleanthes and Chrysippus as maintaining that “only the wise man is king, dictator [jj.6uapxos 1], and rich.” — Ec Fin. 4 (3), 7. He also quotes Stoic Paradoxes, of which the fifth reads: “Only the [morally] wise man is free, and every foolish man is a slave.” — 0pp. Philos. 1,520 ; and the sixth, “Only the [morall^q wise man is rich.” — 0pp. Philos. 1, 533. In arguing for a preceding paradox from a Stoic’s point of view, he treats “the wise man’s mind” as “surrounded by all the virtues as by walls.” — 0pp. Philos. 1, 511. Seneca, sometimes at least, x>hilosophy, not in its heathen sense, but as meaning love of moral wisdom. See Epist. 89, 4, 5 ; 90, 1 ; 95, 12, 13. Cicero, when quoting or defending Stoic ideas, uses it in the same way. See his De Offic. 2 (2), 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 {0pp. 9, 468) ; Seneca, Epist. 89, 4 ; Cicero, De Offic. 2 (2), 5 ; and Tusc. Quecst. 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. [CII. III. quently termed lack of wisdom, or of understanding, folly or senselessness.^" In our scanty remnants of the Greek Stoics we find it designated in the same way.^^ 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 tlie Deity, though without understanding by it apparently anything which could be permanently separated, except in imagination, from God himself.^^ Among the Stoics we find the same or a similar use of this word.^^ 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.^^ 27 ‘‘Foolish men {aaiveroC) shall not attain her (Wisdom) and sinners shall not see her.” — Birach, 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, 9 . 2^ See Hymn of Cleanthes, line 17, quoted in note 24. The fourth Stoic paradox quoted by Cicero {Ojop. 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.” 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.” The Hymn of Cleanthes speaks of the divine nature (line 2) as “ piloting all things by Law,” and again mentions the — § 1 .] 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.^^ In the hymn of Cleanthes the same figure of speech twice occurs. A play upon words, common to Jews and Stoics, is sub- joined,^^ since it is not wholly without bearing on the question of mental intercourse between the two. The same maybe said of a similitude, common in Jew- ish literature, which Stoics applied, apparently in con- tempt, to the perishable heathen deities.^^ The absence Unfortunates who, constantly desiring the possession of good things, Do not regard tlie all-pervading Law of God, nor hearken to it, By obeying which with their understanding, they would have an excellent life.” Lines 22 -24. Perhaps 'dva-iiopoL (unfortunates) may in the above have been mentally associated with bvaixwpoi (utterly foolish). Compare notes 13, 33, and the use of 7rL(jorari in Sueton. iVero, 33. Again in the same production we have the statement : Tliere 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. Wisd. of Sol. 14, 3, quoted in note 20. ^ “"EtTrai xocr^uos d/coo'/40s.” — Sibyl. Orac. 7, 123. Kocrpeis 6.KOcrpLa.^^ — 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 A77X0S d8r]\oSf 2d/xos dpaos, 'FupiT} pdpr). — Sibyl. Orac. 3, 3G.3, 304 ; 4, 5)1, 92 ; 8, 105, 100. 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, P.S. 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 rrjKSpLevov (bs Krjpbs (edit. Laurence, 2, 211, § X.) correspond with the Septuagint phraseology. ^ See citation from Plutarch, in note 18. The Greek words there used, TrjKTovs . . . IbaTrep KTjpbovs, are merely different forms of those occurring in the Greek Old Testament and in the Book of Enoch. 52 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CIl. III. of respect towards these beings implied in the similitude is even more indicative of Jewish influence than the si- militude itself. The 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.^^ 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 lieathen cotemporaries. It would be as reasonable to confound the Shang-te of Christian missionaries with that of the Chinese.^^ 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.^^ Jews used it in two senses. They designated by it the parental affection of the Deity towards his earthly cliildren, or towards such of them as worshipped him.^^ 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, § li. Part A. The same argument as implied by Stoic leadei’s has already been quoted in note 18. See Ch. I. note 2. The same reasons which weighed with such men as Morrison, Medhurst, Stronach, and others, to call the Supreme Being Shang4e, might influence the Stoics in calling him Jupiter. ^ 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. 39 “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.^^ 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 iiiHueiice 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, IJ (or in the Septuagint, 11, IJ). Compare 14, 3, quoted in note 20. “ As a father pitietli his children. So the Lord pitieth them that fear him.” Ps. 103, 13. Whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth, Even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.” Prov. 3, 12, Noyes’s trails. I have become a father to Israel, And Ephraim is my first-born.” Jeremiah, 31, 0, 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, Dent. 10, IP, IP, quoted on pages 21, 22), even if precedence were conceded, as in 1 Tim. 4, L>, to believers. 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 yeperrjp, Forefather, Originator (see Ch. I. note 4), corresponds nearly in meaning with the foregoing use of Father. Plato’s use of the latter term (see Note K, § ii. 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 (Bohn’s trans. 4, 182, 183) ; On [tliF] 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 KOME. [CH. III. they originate in Asia Minor and Syria, but not in Egypt ? The answer is, that in Alexandria, the chief s^chool 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 date, pre- cluded foothold in that city to the Marcionites, or Gnos- tics of Asia Minor,^i would have rendered it a difficult held for Stoics. § II. Homan Stoics. Among Eoman Stoics we hnd 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, vrould have been a King from the East.^^ 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 fbom the East.^^ 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."^^ The exclusion of Stoics from public affairs (see Ch. I. note 31), and their expulsion from Eome shortly after the capture of Jerusalem,^^ corroborate their affiliation with See in Ch. XL § i. No. 1, the differing characteristics of Marcio- nites and Yalentinians, the Gnostics of Asia Minor and of Alexandria. See Ch. VI. § ii. No. 1, and Sibylline extract in Appendix, Note A, foot-note 96. See Appendix, Note A, foot-note 96. See in Appendix, Note A, foot-notes 96, 97, and the text prefixed to them. 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 §n.] INFLUENCE ON THE ROMAN STOICS. 55 Judaism. Their subsequent expulsion, or alleged expul- sion, under Doinitian, admits more question as to whether it were effected by the emperor or, during his absence, by the aristocracy.^® The Noachic 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 conhagration is represented as yet future. Quintus Cicero, in the passage already referred to, whilst maintaining that some were endued with ability to foreknow “ Hoods and the con- against them out of anger rather than from love of learning, and Vespasian immediately expelled from Rome all the philosojihers except Musonius.” — Dio Cass. 66, 02yp. 4, 22(;, 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, CfEsar, 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. Dio Cassius, who in the preceding note identifies philosophers and Stoics, subsequently narrates certain events under Domitiaii, to which his editor has affixed, in the margin, the date of A. D. 95. His narrative says : “Many others were ruT 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. The mention of floods in the plural may be 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 ditferent Sibylline frag- ments, which mentioned or alluded to the flood in ways that created a belief in more than one. 56 JUDAISM AT HOME. [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 FUTUUE. 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 flood and con- flagrationJ^ A similar inference concerning Stoics would be less certain, yet among Kornan Stoics the two events are constantly mentioned in juxtaposition. There was one Eoman 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. AVhatever prominence he may have mentally given to the conflagration,^^ 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.^^ His mention of com 48 u then existing woi'ld, by being flooded with water, was de- stroyed, but THE PRESENT heaven and earth are by His command treasured lip for fire, being reserve'd to a day of judgment and destruction upon men who ignore God.” — 2 Pet. 3, 6, 7. In note 71, the simile of Hercules alludes only to conflagrations. “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 divelliturque. When once the world shall have relaxed somewdiat 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 § 11 .] INFLUENCE ON THE ROMAN STOICS. 57 flagrations in the plural may be due to a desire of advocat- ing natural laws, or of differing from Judaism, or to both. Seneca was but a youth during the anti-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 lire 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. Tlie 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 lONOiiANT of CRIMES AND BORN UNDER BETTER AUSPICES. But among them also in- nocence will only last whilst they are [a] new [set]. AVickedness creeps in promptly. Virtue is difficult of attainment ; it needs a superintendent and guide. Vices are learned even without a teacher.” — Seneca, KtU. Qucest. 3, 30, 2-7 {0pp. Philos. 5, 3(57-3GO). Cp. Nat. Qiicest. 3, 29, 4-S. Seneca’s idea, that the “concord” between dillerent constituent parts of the earth was already giving way, will receive illustration from his explanation of earthquakes, in his Natural Questions^ 6 , 10, 2 {Pkil- osopliical Woi'kSy 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 liis moralizing on this subject in Ch. A^III. in a note at the commencement of § VII. 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.” “ AVe, 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. “The deluge, which, equally as winter or summer, comes by a law of the world.”— Seneca, Nat. Queost. 3, 29, 3 {0pp. Philos. 5, 364). Com- pare in note 68 his views on the relation of omens to natural laws. See also p. 150 n. ; Ind. Testwiony^ foot of p. 181 ; 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.^^ When the patrician party, in A. D. 41, regained power, he was banished,^^ 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.^^ His precaiious position did not, however, prevent him from maintaining the perishable nature of the gods,^^ nor from ridiculing reactionary movements in their honor, though it may have prompted him to accom- pany this latter procedure with a fling at J udaism.^® 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 argiirnent.^^ Stoic teaching again resembles or imitates it. Heathen teaching, with slight exception, does not. The exception bears, though in less degree than Stoicism, the marks of Jewish influence.^^ No terser statement of the argument could well be See Seneca, Epist. 103, 21, 22, cited in Ch. YIII. § i. note 9. Compare in Ch. Y. notes 9 and 10, and the text belonging to them. See in Ch. Y. note 9, Seneca’s affirmation of risk consequent on any openly manifested disapproval of public games or brutalities. 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 . See on pp. 67, 226, 228, citations by Augustine {De CivUate Deij 6, 10, ll) from Seneca, Against Superstitions. “ He that planted the ear, shall he not hear ? He that formed the eye, shall he not see ?” — Ps. 94, 0. “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 knowdedge that they could examine the world, why did they not sooner discover its master ? ” — Wisd. of Sol. 13, 8 , 9 . Compare Rom. 1, 20, 21. ^ See Appendix, Note K, § i. 2-5, § il. 1-9. GENERAL REMARKS. 59 §ni.] framed than tliat which Cicero puts into the mouth of the Stoic Balbus.^^ § III. General Eemarks. That any set of men should be pantheists, that is, should identify God and the world, or ascribe to the world the attributes of an intelligent Being, would be a singular feature in human history.^® Yet the Stoics have been commonly regarded as doing this, and passages in some of their writers bear out the statement.^^ Other 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 Naturob Deontm, 2, (:u, 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 witli 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. 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 “'VVhat is God ? The mind of the universe. What is God? All which you see, and all which you do not see.” — Seneca, NaL Quoest. 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 rigMy. . . .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.^ Not improbably their minds fluctuated on the subject. They did not share Jewish belief in a revelation which liad 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.®^ 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, dvdo-rao-L'^^ admits the ceived, for he is all which you see.” — Seneca, QuoesL 2, 45, 1, 2. Compare in Appendix, Note A, foot-note 32, Virgil’s pantheistic imita- tion of a monotheistic document. See, for instance, the detailed statement in Seneca, De Beiieficiis^ 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 ; 0pp. 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.” Seneca says : “Whether the world be a soul, or a body under the guidance of nature, as trees and plants are.” — Nat. Qucest. 3, 29, 2 ; Op)p. 5, 3G4. 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 ov/n 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. GENERAL REMARKS. 61 §m.] meaning re-establisliment, 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.®^ At other times he speaks doubtfully.®^ 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 tauglit a judgment. On the subject of omens and divination the earlier Stoics coincided with heathen,®® rather tlian Jewish views, at least if by Jewish we understand the views of tlie more conscientious. Monotheism does not preclude belief in “ 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. . . . AVe are maturing for another birth. . . . We cannot bear heaven until after an interval [of preparation].” — Seneca, Epist. 102, 2i?, 2S, “Death either destroys us or sets us free.” — Seneca, Epist. 24, 18. “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, :g. “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, thei*e supervened Chrysippus, a man of most acute genius, Avho 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 AVE should do in other things ? Especially when that, which was not clear to Paneetius, 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 stage 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 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 w^e can judge from Seneca and Epictetus, modified or reversed their views of divination. Seneca seemingly ridicules it,®® and Epictetus Cicero ascribes to his brother Quintus the following summary : “If there are gods, and if the)^ 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.” — DeDwinat. 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. Y. 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 GENERAL REMARKS. 63 .§in.] puts it not a little into the background.®® Persons who differ from established views may in several ways be mis- led into unduly retaining popular phraseology.'® The patrician representative of the Stoics betrays this ten- dency.'^ 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 thej^ 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. Quoest. 2, 32, 2, 3. The concluding remark may have been based on Cicero’s answer to his brother, De DivU natione^ 2, 1(1 (§§ 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, andaflirms almost immediately afterwards : “There is no animal whicli, by its motion and meeting with us, does not foretell something.” — Nat. Qucest. 2, 32, 6. Epictetus, Disscrtat. 2, 7, (5. (Compare, however, Dissertat. 3, 22, r>3). Encheiridion, c. 39, otherwise numbered 32. These will be found in Schweiglneuser’s edit. 1, pp. 201, 457 ; 4, pp. 402, 403, ; and in Higginson’s translation, pp. 112, 250, 388, 389. Sometimes the motive is to avoid odium ; sometimes it is hesitation in selecting the most appropriate, or defensible, ne^v 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. “ 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 EOME. [CH. III^ Cynics and Stoics were somewhat identified at EomeJ^ though not perhaps until after the expulsion, already mentioned, of Greek culture and J udaism from that city. A Cynic was, apparently, a morose or dogged Stoic, or one who prided himself on disregarding the comforts of life.'^^ 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.*^^ 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 perfomied, he will WITHDRAW INTO THE FIRE ; Mei'cury, 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 Lissertat. 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 . . . liomi- nis naturam cum Stoicis vinccre cum Cynicis exccdcrc. Seneca, Be Brevi- tate Vitce^ 15, 5 ; 0pp. Bliilosopli. 1, 454 . 7^ Cicero, at the conclusion of his De Naiura Deorum (3, 94 ), represents the Stoic Balbus, after listening to Cotta’s raillery, as exclaiming that they must discuss it again, that it was pi'o avis et focis for the most pre- cious of human possessions. GENERAL REMARKS. 65 § III.] 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 llelvidiiis Prisons and Marc Antonine. Politics in the former, probably, overlaid idiilosophy.^^ 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 Roman 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 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.’^’^ But no one born during or after the Jewish This Ilelvidius 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 Xero, 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, Ilelvidius Priscus asked for his body. (Plutarch, Galba, 2S.) 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 [Miisonius] 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. See Ch. X. § vi. and Ch. XI. 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 J udaism, 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. CHAPTEE IV. JEWISH DIVISION INTO WEEKS. § I. Adopted by 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 Eomans before contact with them.^ Its universal adoption by society, while the government and ruling classes were hostile to Judaism, cannot be ac- counted for by its convenience,^ 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. ^ See Smith, Diet, of Antiq. pp. 222-233, on the Greek and Roman Calendar. Any division into weeks is there ignored. ^ 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. 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.” ^ About the Christian era a heathen teacher in Ehodes, mentioned by Suetonius,^ 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.^ At tlie 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.® Wliatever may have been the character of 3 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. ^ Seneea, Against Siqyerstitions (quoted by Augustine, De Civitate Dci^ 6, 11) ; also Epistle 95, 47. See both passages quoted more fully in Ch. VIII. note 132. ® ‘‘ 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 A]nony 2, 39 (al. 40 ). Compare Juvenal, cited in Ch. X. note 118. On the use of “practical monotheism” to designate or include ceremonial observances, see in the Appendix, under Note B, § 1, the last paragraph of sub-section 4. 68 JUDAISM AT KOME. [CH. IV. J osephus, 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 weeks is that of nomenclature for the individual days. The Jews used none.^ 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.® 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.^ Tertullian also, in works addressed to Their term sabbath for the seventh day is scarcely an exception. ® “The connecting of the days with the seven stars called planets [the sun, moon, and five then known planets] originated with the Eg}^ptians, 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 was, 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. ^ “ On the day called *of the Sun’ all . . . come together. ... On the day of tlie 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. §11.] JEWISH DIVISION INTO WEEKS. 69 heathens, uses the terms day of the Sun and day of Saturn.^'^ 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 Eome — 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 b}^ some Christians, are visible among heathens.^^ Were we to stop here, tlie nomenclature of days would seem to have originated exclusively among heathens, but tlie name of Saturn was connected with the seventh day at least one hundred and lilty or two hundred years be- fore the rebellion under Hadrian. Tibullus, a cotempo- rary of Virgil, uses the phrase clay of SaUcrnf^ and the prominence given to Saturn in the Erythraean verses, B. c. 76, renders probable that already at that date the name of tliis planet was connected with the seventh day.^^ Tertul. Apol. c. 16, and Ad Nat. 1 , 13. Tertullian speaks of persons, heathens doubtless, who “ devote the Day of Saturn to ease and eating ; living outside of Jewish custom, which they ignore.” — c. 16. Elsewhere {Ad Nat. ‘ 1 , 13) he mentions heathens who made the san^e use of Sunday. Tibullus, Elcg. 1 , 3, 18. On the above supposition the writer of the Erythraean 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. AVere 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 Erythraean writer had not invented the term Day of JSaturn, 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 ; 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.” § III. 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.^^ Jewish habits of merely numbering the days retained, until at least the fourth century, such promi- nence as to be recognized in imperial edicts.^® 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. See Dionysius of Corinth (quoted by Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 4, 23), and yet later, Tertullian, De Idol, c. 14 ; De Corona Mil. c. 3 ; De Oral. c. 18. Luke and Paul retain (Acts, 20, 7; 1 Cor. 16, 2) the Jewish phraseolog}^ The Apocalypse (1, 10) in all probability uses KvpLaKrj, Day of the Lord, for the day of his second coming. The same use by Melito (Euseb. Ecc. Hist. 4, 20) 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. 1® Suicer in his Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, 2, 183, col. 2 (2d. edit.), under the article KvpLaKri, 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. 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 Home, 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 Eorne 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.^ 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. AWien 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 ^ See Josephus, Antiq. 15, 8, l, quoted in Ch. II. note 26. 72 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. abolished.^ Julius Caesar, 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.^ 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.'^ If the date of his difibr- 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 JEdilitian 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 tliousand 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, Ejnst. ad Fratrem, 1, 1 ; Yol. 3, 541 . Cicero in his Laivs seerns to fluctuate between forbidding persoi^al 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. ^ Ciesar 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. ^ “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- §1.] PUBLIC GAMES. 73 ent ordinances concerning them could be determined,® 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 Martins, 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 Ccesars. 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 sj)irit of the young nobles should be dis- jdayed in such exercises. Caius Nonius Asprenus, Avho wtis 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 yEserninus, his grandson, wdio 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, l), and the person to whom Yirgil 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 Eome, and believed, apparently, in a culture difierent from that of public games. The accident to his grandson was the occasion, more probably than the motive, for his utterance. ^ * * He prohibited combats of gladiators whei*e 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.® 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, Bohn’s trans. ® 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, 1, 54. In the year A. d. 15 “certain knights being desirous of fighting 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 ingenii, and fear of comparison, because Augustus liked to associate in such places.” — Tacitus, An. 1, 76. No other instance of such a tendency in Drusus is mentioned by any one. . In the 3 ^ear A. D. 27 “a certain Atilius, of the freedman class, having begun an amphitheatre at Fidense, wherein to exhibit a gladiatorial show, . . . those w-ho 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. §l] 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.*^ With the accession of Claudius, patricianism obtained complete control. Murder in the public games became a daily amusement;® and Seneca, wlm expressed him- self strongly on the subject,^ 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. ^ Claudius “instituted constantly single figlits ; 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, L3. 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 Eomans to look upon such a spec- tacle.” — Dio Cass. 60, 18. ^ “Nothing is so injurious to good morals as to take a seat in one of JUDAISM AT ROME. 76 [CH. V. other respects than as regarded his views of such amuse- ment, have been deemed an unfaithful patriciand^ 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 tins 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, misers able man, that you should [have to] look on ? Kill, strike, burn [him]. Wh}^ is he so timid to rush against the sword ? Why so void of au- dacity to kill ? Why 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 moials 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. The assigned cause for Seneca’s banishment (Dio Cass. 60 , s) is not credible. PUBLIC GAMES. 77 § 1 .] and now the masters, having obtained ascendency, forced such as had told the trutli 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,^^ and in A. D. 52, when tlie 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. The apologists of patricianism assert Claudius “exhibited in the Campus Martins 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 tlirough the mountain between the Lake Fucinus and the river Liris, that a greater 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 oj:)erations 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 brave men ; aii(f, 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 >vas 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.^^ Some smaller exhibitions are omit- ted.^^ With the accession of Nero, a reaction took place against patricianism. This may have commenced ear- lier,^^ 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 ISTarcissus, 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. Sueton. Claud. 21. See Dio Cass. 60, 7, 13, 23 ; Tac. An. 11, 11 ; Sueton. Claud, c. 21. The recall of Seneca in A. D. 49 ma^ 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 PUBLIC GAMES. 79 §1.] 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 tlie 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.^® Magistrates in charge of provinces were forbidden to exhibit fights 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. Moi*al sense and monotheistic teacliing 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-fight, resembling modern Spanish ones, took place.^® Nero, though not witliout good points, had defects of character which must liave 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. Tacitus gives the date in his Annals, 13, 31 ; and Suetonius the facts in his life of Nero, c. 12. ^‘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, 31, Bohn’s trans. 1^ “ Men killed bulls, chasing them on horseback.” — Dio Cass. 61, 0. 80 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. terings were heard in A. d. 64, shortly after the burning of Kome, gave, doubtless, an advantage to patiician re- actionaries. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius were, during more than a year, rival contestants for the throne, and were succeeded by Vespasian, who was of the auti-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.” 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.^^ Domitian, though attentive to the administration of justice, and favoring some anti-patrician reforms, cannot have had special scruples about public games.^^ 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.^^ 19 Dio Cass. 66,15. 20 “ Having dedicated his amphitheatre, and hiiilt some warm haths close by it with great expedition, lie entertained the people with most magnificent spectacles. He likewise exhibited a naval fight in the old Kaumachia, besides a combat of gladiators ; and in one day brought into the theatre five thousand wild beasts of all kinds.” — Sueton. Titus, c. 7, Bohn’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. See Sueton. Doinit. 4. 22 In Sturz’s Dio Cassius, Yol. 6, p. 599 , note 13, appended to Book PUBLIC GAMES. 81 §i] Trajan, who followed him, was a representative of pa- trician interests. Under him, games again equalled or exceeded in atrocity those under Claudius.^^ Hadrian can scarcely be classified with either party. Gladiatorial contests were not prominent nor prohibited in his reign.^^ 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. Uis biog- rapher mentions shows of rare wild beasts,^ but says nothing of killing men for amusement, and a quoted saying of his renders improbable tliat he permitted it.^^ Marc Antonine had a Stoic education and patrician surroundings. He compromised liis conscience by per- mitting some cruelties alien to his feelings,^" but lie fur- nished gladiators with bloodless weapons for their con- tests when he was present.^^ In the days of Augustus, Claudius, Trajan, and INIarc 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.” — Chroiiicon 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.” ^ See in note 58 of Ch. X. details from Dio Cassius, 68 , 15 . 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. Capitolinus, Antcmin. PiuSy c. 9 ; Script. Hist. August, p. 36. “ He said : He would rather save one citizen than kill a thousand enemies.” — Capitolinus, Antonin. PiuSy c. 9 ; Script. Hist. Aug. p. 35. See extract from Dio Cass. 71, 29 , in note 9 of Ch. XII. ^ “ Marcus took so little pleasure in killings, that he would [only] be present at the contests of gladiators in Koine pvhen] 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 whicli its individual mem- bers did not openly and decidedly dare to oppose, though some of them in private uttered their disapprobation.^^ 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, Hero, 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,^^ and this same party, the popular one. 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 palicdatim a general’s uniform [or, more literall}^ in a general’s cloak].” — Seneca, Epist. 95, 31 ; 0pp. 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 ; 0pp. 4, 123 . On sharing bread with the hungry, compare Job, 22, 7 ; Prov. 25, ANNEXATION AND DISINTEGRATION. 83 § ni.] bore, in case of war, the most of its burdens, while its emoluments inured to the privileged classes.^^ It may have been partly on this account that when effort was made to substitute a senatorial for a non-senatorial prince, tlie common soldiers (see § ix.) were found, or deemed to be, obstacles in the way. Cicero in his De ReimUicay written in defence of patri- cian yiews, 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.^ § III. Annexation and Disintegration, In order to understand the senatorial position on con- version of dependent or independent kingdoms into Ko- 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.^^ . 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, and favored disintegration when anxious to de- 21 ; Is. 58, 7 and 10 ; Ezek. 18, 7 and 10. On the meml^rship of one body, compare 1 Cor. 12, 12, 20, 27 (a new application, perhaps, of Jew- ish teacliing), and an extract from Sandars, hereafter to be given in Ch. VII. note 89. At tlie death of Augustus common soldiers had been kept in service (Tacitus, An. 1, 3o) 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. Cicero, De Repub, 6, 7 ; 0pp. Philos. 5, 37r> (Greek text, c. 3 ; 0pp. Philos. 5, 408.) Compare extract in Ch. VI I. note 23. ^ Dio Cassius (53, 12) enumei'ates the provinces which in B. c. 27 were under senatorial and those which were under imperial control. 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 EOME. [CH. V. tract from that of the Emperor in behalf of its own coad- jutors.^^ 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 Eome’s domain.^® 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 Home, and his evident favor and connection wdth 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 ib Claudius must have been induced to make a public com- pact with Herod in the Eornan forum. The appointment . of an alabarch or ethnarch over the The domain granted to successive Jewish kings and ethnarchs, and to Antiochus of Commagene, could detract only from imperial, not from senatorial, provinces. On the death of Herod, surnamed the Great, his unfortunate sub- jects earnestly, but unsuccessfully, petitioned (Josephus, Antiq. 17 , 11, }, 2) for annexation to the imperial province of Syria. Commagene wdshed 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 Eornan affairs. The allegation that Caligula granted to Antiochus all the revenues of Commagene for the time that it had been a Eornan prov- incOj 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. §IV.] ANNEXATION AND DISINTEGRATION. 85 Jews at Alexandria was simply the establisliment of a dependent king under another narne.^^ 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,^® — 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 tlian profit. It also was, for a time at least, turned over to Tiberius.®^ § IV. Eerjicide. 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 Ciesar, Caligula, and I)omitian were assassinated. Nero was forced to self-murder. The Josephus, after mentioning that a large part of Alexandria was as- signed to Jews, says : “Their ethnarch [or national ruler] is appointed wlio administers [the affairs of] the nation, gives judicial decisions, superintends avjnl3o\aicoi/ (public agreements) and ir poo-ray /uLaruiv (ordi- nances), as if ruler of an independent state.” — Aiitlq. 14, 7, ‘2. ^ “It was decided by the Senate that Achaia and Macedonia, which were pleading against their burdens, should, for the present, l>e relieved of proconsular rule and turned over to Cresar.” — Tacitus, An. 1, 73. When these provinces had recuperated and could bear fleecing, the Senate (Sueton. Claud. 25 ; Dio Cass. 60, 24) reassumed control. When the pojiular party, under Vespasian, regained power, they were returned (Sueton. Vesp. 8) to the prince. In A. D. 17 apparently, Taefarinas (Tacitus, An. 2, 52) commenced his military operations, and in A. d. 21 “it was decreed concerning Africa [by the Senate] tliat Ciesar 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. We are told by Juvenal ( 5 , 36) that a senatorial leader used, with liis son-in-law, to celebrate the birthdays of Brutus and Cassius, crowned with laurel. 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 lieathens slavery was in some respects less, and in others far more, severe than as it lately existed in this country.^^ The aristocracy, rather than the popular party, evinced contempt towards, and Compare notes on pp. 172, 223, 315, 320, 325, 455. 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 AtfAc. 5, 20) : While I write from my tribunal the result amounts alrea) 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 freedwornan. 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 “ [iretorian ornaments and fifteen million sesterces” to its originator. If Suetonius {Vcspas. 11) §VI.] EXPENSIVE LIVING. 89 pride in having them from diverse nationalities.^^ Many slaves were jiurchased for tlieir capacity as pugilists, wrestlers, or gladiators, and not a few because of personal beauty, or for capacity as clowns and jesters. Tlie 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 Neither were the slaves a terror to the household only. A whole iieigli- horhood 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 ])ower was more effectually crip- pled than at any intermediate }>eriod, an inordinately ex- pensive habit of living was in vogue among the wealthier Itomans.^^ The explanation by Tacitus of its decay is insuflicient.^" The only satisfactory explanation is, that be correct, that a similar law was enacted in the time of Vespasian, he must err in supposing tliat Vespasian prompted it. Patricianism, in the time of Suetonius, liad 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. lie was uninfected by patrician sen- timent on this subject. 44 << What should first be prohibited . . . the number and nationality, numcrum ct nationeSy of our slaves.” — Tiberius in Tacitus, An. 3, “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 . “The luxury of the table which, from the liattle of Actium to the revolution by which Galba obtained the Empire, a space of a hundred years, was practised with themost costly profusion, began then gradually to decline.” — Tacitus, An. 3, 0 ,% Bohn’s trans. “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 gooil fortune or industry, many of them grew wealthy as they grew old, yet their for- 90 JUDAISM AT HOME. [CH. Y. 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 ofticial 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.^® They naturally were not ambitious to be deemed mer 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.” — Bohn’s trans. “ 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 extra vagance 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 Cains 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 : . . . ‘ 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 Avhat 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, 52 , 53 , Bohn’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.^^ 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.^^ 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 ! Among the books discov- ered at Herculaneum, not a few seem to have been upon cookery Tiberius, Vespasian, and Domitian discoun- inents 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. “ 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, Avill undertake to stem 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. Seneca, Epist. 95, 15 - 29 . Gout is specified as common among women, owing to their way of life. Ibid. 23 . ^2 ‘‘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 aiinoy- ing/^3 'Pq Domitian, who was systematically industrious, they would have been a loss of time.^ 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,^^ and when an inordinately expensive fish was sent him he declined to have it cooked.^® Table extravagance was but one of the forms in which Eoinans wasted their property. § VII. 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.” — IsyeWf Geology y 2, 157, 4th London edition. The triumphal procession of Vespasian tired him out, and thereby, in liis 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. See Ch. X. note 25. ^ 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, e. 34, Bohn’s trans. A mullet, according to Pliny Hist. 9, 17), rarely exceeded tv;o 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. SUPPRESSION OF DOCUMENTS. 93 § VII.] 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 Eoinan history are attribu- table, unless possibly in the case of Domitian, to the senatorial party. The burning in B. c. 181 of boohs alleged to have been written by Numa,^^ 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 Caisar.^® The subjection of Augustus during many years to patrician influence, and the manner in which lie 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 miimportant, 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 publislied, thus rendering it more responsible to public opinion.^® The destruction and secretion of Sibylline compositions, See Appendix, Note A, foot-note 14. “Ceitain works are alleged to have been written by liim [Julius Cresar] in boyhood and early manhood, Praucs of Hercules ; (Edipus, a tragedy ; also Maxims [or Provcrhial Saywgs\ all which booklets Augustus, in a brief and plain epistle to Pom 2 ‘>eius Macer, — to whom he hnd delegated the arrangement of libraries, — forbade ^ pulUeari to he ])laced within reach of the public’ (or, perhajts, ‘to be sold by booksell- ers ’).” — Sueton. Ctesar^ 56. The Hercules and (Edipus, works probably of no consequence, may have been included in the prohibition as a means of withdrawing attention {vom Maxims, which the aristocracy did not care to have in circulation backed by Ciesar’s authority. Julius Ciesar “introduced a new regulation, that the daily actsbotli of the Senate and peo])le should be committed to writing and published.” — Sueton. Ccesar, 20, Bohn’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, Bohn’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.^ The further destruction of documents under his suc- cessor was an effort of the aristocracy to conceal their own misdeeds.^^ During the senatorial conspiracy against Domitian, a biography of Helvidius Prisons, Avritten by one of the conspirators, a biography which not improbably advocated or lauded assassination,^^ 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. DowAt. 10) Avith punishing liberty of speech. ' Whether and how far the misdeeds of his antagonist, the Senate, have been attributed to him, may be a cpies- 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, Bohn’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, Bohn’s trans. 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 Cass. 60, 4 . Compare Ch. X. note 37. SUPPRESSION OF DOCUMENTS. 95 § VII.] 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 jiarty was com- mon. About the same time, destruction to Cicero’s writings was advocated ; probably because tliey were thought to make standing ground for monotheism.^ No charge is made against Emperors of the popular party, even by their enemies, that tliey 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 Fress.^^ 63 “With our own eyes we belield the inspired and sacred writings given, in the middle of the market-places, to the fire.” — Euseb. Ecc, Hist. 8 , 2. Compare Mosheim, De Rebus {Commentaries on the Affairs of Christians before Consteintine)^ Cent. 4, § ii. ; in Murdock’s edit, see especially pp. 417, 423, 426, 427. “ I know that there are not a few^vho 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. ” — Amob. Gent. 3, 7. Censorship of the press is sometimes political, sometimes theological, and sometimes practical. AVhat 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- clopsedia Americana), was, during the author’s visit to Germany, under ban of the Prussian censorship. Von Raumer’s Fall of Roland 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 censors annotations. Some passage, intended to be humorous, ridiculed the uniform of a Leipsic military company. Opposite was written, Kami 96 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. § VIII. Sympathy of the Jewish with the Roman Aris- tocracy, To some extent the J ewish 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 y who were closely in league with the patrician fac- tion at Eome, found support in the aristocracy of Judaea, rather than among the middle and lower classes. The inference seems fair, that co-operation, direct or indirect, existed between the ruling classes at Eome and Jeru- salem. If we now turn to Alexandria, w^e 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 w^as a man of un- usual administrative ability and moral worth.^® nicht stehend hleihen 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. 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 liis excel- lence, for he was a man of prudence and diligence, and great acuteness of perception, veiy energetic in executing what he had determined on, very elofpient 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 thing.s, 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-pioud, he forbade promiscuous mobs of men from all quarters to assemble together, and })rohibited 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 militar}’' service, remembering that lie 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- that he was superior to all the governors who had gone before him. But in the last year, after Tiberius was dead, and when Cains had suc- ceeded him as Emperor, he began to relax in and to be indifierent 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 fok a near relation . . . ), or whether it was because he was disaffected to his successor.” ^ Philo, Against Flouccus^ cc. 1, 3 ; Vol. 4 , Gl-63, Bohn’s trans. 5 G 98 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. ims.^ Other of his observations accord with this view,^ 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 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 falseliood, 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. 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 [eccr^^Seta, practical-monotheism].’ ” — Embassy to Cams, c. 37, Bohn’s trans. ; Paris edit. p. 726. In the same work (c. 20, p. 695) he alleges, that the adornments upon the sjmagogues in honor of THE emperors, sucli as “ gilded (or perhaps inlaid) shields and crowns as also pillars and inscriptions” were a reason why the synagogues themselves should have been spared. And {Against Flaccus, c. 7, p. 667) he complains, that the Jews, if deprived of their synagogues, could no longer evince “practical-monotheism towards their benefactors,” meaning, apparently, by religious services in their behalf. This inability “they would regard as WORSE THAN TEN THOUSAND DEATHS, since they would have no sacred precincts wherein to express their gratitude.” He endeavors to impress this view by repetition. “ To the Jews everywhere in the world their synagogues are obviously means of inciting religious fidelity towards the house of Augustus. If thesewere destroyed, what other place, or method, of showing honor would be left ? ” — Ibid. Language of thk> kind causes distrust of its author. §VIII.] SYMPATHY BETWEEN THE ARISTOCRACIES. 99 same political school.®^ He was arrested by Caligula, probably for connection with patrician crime, was re- leased by the aristocracy when they attained power under Claudius and this release was coincident with a rebellion, and violent suppression, of what seems to have been tlie Jewish commonalty at Alexandria. His son was after- wards, during patrician dominance, made prociu*ator of Judaea. That this son turned lieathen need cause no sur- prise."^^ A Jewish council had been instituted at Alexandria by Augustus."^ Tliis was some years after Antony’s defeat, and it must have been selected from among tliose friendly to patricianism. As thirty-eight members of it were at one time arrested, its whole number may have been sev- enty, the favorite Jewisli one. Herod Agrippa Senior had, because of his mother’s friendship with Antonia,"^ early intercourse with the fam- ily of Tiberius. The Senate liad probably, during tlie lifetime of that Emperor, employed this man to sound, and if possible to intrigue witli, Caligula against his uncle."^ Tiberius, confident perhaps in Caligula’s affection for him- self, took at first no action in the matter. Antonia, whose goodness of heart prevented mistrust of one whose mother had been dear to her, importuned Tiberius for a judicial See pp. 84, 85, and compare Josephus, Antiq. 19, 5, 1 ; 20, 5, 2. Josephus mentions {Antiq. 20, 5, 2) that Tiberius Alexander, son of the alabarch, was made procurator of Judsea and deserted Judaism. ■<1 Philo, Against Flaccits, 10, 0})p. Paris edit. p. 670. Herod Agrippa “requested Antonia ... to lend him the three hun- dred thousand (drachmje) . . . and she, for the recollection of his mother Bernice, with whom she had been exceedingly intimate, and for his own snke, as he had been brought up among the companions of [her son] Claudius, gave him the money.” — Josephus, Antiq. 18, 6, 4. Con- cerning Antonia, see Appendix, Note G, foot-note 56. Herod “betook himself to pay his respects to Cains [Caligula] .... Now . . . there happened some words to pass betweeii them, as they once were in a chariot together, concerning Tiberius ; Agrippa praying [to God] (for they two sat by themselves), that ‘ Tiberius might soon go off the stage, and leave the government to Cains, who was in every respect more worthy of it.’ ’’ — Josephus, Antiq. 18, 6, 4, 5, Winston’s trans. 100 JUDAISM AT EOxME. [CH. V. investigation. To this he at last consented, though with the remark that she might find the matter more serious than she supposed."^ We now come to the train of events. Caligula was taken ill in August of A. D. 37."^ The illness endan- gered life, and lasted for weeks certainly, if not for rnonths.'^^ He can hardly have been confined to bed be- fore the aristocracy were plotting a recovery of their an- cient power. Herod was despatched to Alexandria with a fleet and a commission from the Senate as its general/^ — a commission which violated the Eoman constitution, that had been in force for almost seventy years.^® He landed furtively in that city,'^ and early in October Flac- When Antonia, at Herod’s request, besought an investigation, Ti- berius replied, “ . . . but if when [Eutyches, freedman and coachman of Herod] is put to the torture, his statements shall be verified, beware lest [Herod], while desiring to punish his freedman, shall rather invoke justice on himself.” — Josephus, Antiq. 18, 6, 6. Antonia, at Her- od’s request, again urged the matter, and he answered, “ I shall do it not of my own judgment, but driven to it by your importunity.” — Ihid. Herod, when his request was granted, became frightened (Ibid.), and re- sorted to supplication. ^‘In the eighth month [August] a severe disease attacked Caius.” — Philo, Embassy, 2, p. 682. His alleged dedication, August 31, A. d. 37, of a hero monument [temple ?] to Augustus (Dio Cass. 59, 7) is probabl}^ or, if the date on a medal, A. d. 39, be adopted (see Dio Cass., Yol. 6, p. 317, note 66), is certainly a patrician falsehood. Cp, Ch. YIII. note 55. Bulletins concerning the progress of the disease and recovery were carried, if we can trust Philo (Against Flaecus, c. 3, Paris edit. p. 663) to the extremities of the empire. Y^lien the sickness threatened a fatal issue, he appointed his sister Drusilla (Sueton. Calig. 24) heir to the empire. Philo, Against Flaccus, c. 6, Paris edit. p. 666, 11. 29, 30. Compare note 33 and text prefixed. Tacitus says (An. 2, .59) that Augustus forbade any senator to visit Eg}^pt without his permission. Herod Agrippa “embarked with his followers and had a fair voyage, and so a few days afterwards he arrived at his journey’s end, unforeseen and unexpected, having commanded the captains [pilots] ... to furl their sails, and keep a short distance out of sight in the open sea, until it became late in the evening and dark, and then at night he entered the port, that when he disembai’ked he might find all the citizens buried in §vrii.] SYMPATHY BETWEEN THE ARISTOCBACIES. 101 cus was kidnaj)ped at a friend’s table and carried off by nigbt.^^ If a thread, at least, of truth runs through Philo’s subsequent narrative, he was carried to Italy, put through the form of what must have been a mock trial, banished, and subsequently murdered.^^ The motive for his murder may have been, that, with recovery of Caligula, Placcus would acquire means of redress. His house had been the abode of taste and refinement. Its contents, con- trary to law and precedent, were appropriated by some of the thieves into whose hands he had fallen.^^ The allega- tion, that the goods were seized on behalf of Caligula, sleep, and so, without any one seeing him, he might arrive at the hoii.se of the mail who was to be his entertainer. With so much modesty [wiliness ?] then did this man arrive, wishing if it were possible to enter without being [)erceived by any one in the city,” — Philo, Against Flac- cus, c. 5, Bohn’s trans. ; Paris edit. p. 665. Afterwards, in concert with Herod Agi ipjia, Bassus, the centurion, was sent from Italy ; he ordered the captain of the ship to keep out in the open sea till sunset, intending to enter the city unexpectedly, in order that Flaccus might not be aware of his coming. . . . “And when the evening came, the ship entered the liarbor, and Bas- siis, disembarking with his own soldiers, advanced, neither recognizing nor being recognized by any one; and on his road finding a soldier who was one of the quaternions of the guard, he ordered him to show him the house of his captain. . . . “And when he heard that he was supping at .some person’s house in company with Flaccus, he did not relax in his speed, but hastened on- ward to the dwelling of his entertainer ; . . . and bung in ambush at a short distance, he sent forward one of his own followers to reconnoitre, disgui.sing him like a servant. ... So he, entering into the banqueting- room, as if he were the servant of one of the guests, examined every- thing accurately, and then retur?icd and gave information to Bassus. And he, when he had learnt the unguarded condition of the entrances, and the small number of the people who were with Flaccus, . . . ha.stened forward, and entered suddenly into the supper-room, he and the soldiers with him, . . . and surrounded Flaccus. . . . The time of his arrest . . . was the general festival of the Jews at the time of the autumnal equinox.” — Philo, Agaiiist Flaccus^ cc. 12-14, Bohn’s trans. altered ; Paris edit. pp. 672- 674. 'Pliilo, Against Flaccus, cc. 18, 19, 21 ; Paris edit pp. 678, 679, 681. “ He was immediately stripped of all his possessions, both of those 102 JUDAISM AT KOME. [CH. V. may have been invented at the time, as a means of ward- ing off opposition, or subsequently to cloak crime, or the explanation may be that below in note 82. The conspirators at Alexandria must have had partial success. Whether they were put down by a lieutenant of Flaccus, or by some one sent from Eome, can only be conjectured, for Philo's object was not to illuminate, but to obscure, the whole matter. Thirty-eight members of the Jewish council were arrested.^^ Philo’s brother, per- haps immediately, perhaps after tedious prosecution, was put in chains and remained so until Caligula’s death.®^ Macro, the experienced officer, was appointed — pos- sibly after a preliminary visit — to take charge at Alex- andria. Philo and his companions came in midwinter to Pome, doubtless that they might plead for the conspira- tors. A passage in Suetonius renders probable that they endeavored to influence Caligula through his grand- mother, Antonia,^^ who had been an intimate friend of Herod’s mother, and whose fiscal agent was Alexander which he inherited from his parents and of all that he had acquired him- self, having been a man who took especial delight in what was or- namental ; . . . and besides that he collected a vast number of servants, carefully selected for their excellencies and accomplishments, . . . for^ every one of them was excellent in that employment to which he was appointed, so that he was looked upon as either the most excellent of all servants in that place, or, at all events, as inferior to no one. “ And there is a very clear proof of this in the fact that, though there were a vast number of properties confiscated, and sold for the public benefit, which belonged to persons who had been condemned, that of Flaccus alone was assigned to the Emperor, with perhaps one or two MORE, in order, that the law which had been established . . . might not be violated.” — VhMo, Against Flaccus, 18, Bohn’s trans. altered. ‘One or two more,’ means perhaps that other prominent members of the popular party had been murdered. Caligula may have retaken their property from the conspirators and returned it to their relatives. Cp. Note G, footnote 89. Philo, Against Flaccus, c. 10, Paris edit. p. 670. Josephus, Antiq. 19, 5, l. “To his grandmother, Antonia, who asked a private interview, [Caligula] denied it except with the condition that Macro, the prefect, should be present.” — Sueton. Calig. c. 23. §viir.] SYMPATHY BETWEEN THE ARISTOCRACIES. 103 Lysimachus, the chief offender. Her death, not long afterwards, may have been hastened by grief at the mis- deeds of those whom she had trusted. In A. D. 38, probably in the latter part of it. Macro dis- appears from history Means must have been found by the conspirators to put him out of the way. A twofold embassy was sent from Alexandria to Eome,^" probably with reference to this attempted revolt. Philo, who headed the Jewish delegation, wrote an ac- count of their mission which covers eighty-one pages in Bohn’s translation. But no attention on the reader’s part will enable him to detect in this narrative any ob- ject for the embassy which could liave justified either party in going ten steps to have it settled. When Caligula had been murdered and the patricians came into power, Philo’s brother was set at liberty. Concurrent therewith a revolt of the Alexandrine Jews took place,^® — a revolt certainly from among such as did not sympathize with their alabarch or his doings. Of Philo’s two political works, that Against Flaccus and probably also the Embassy to Cains were written several years after the events to which they refer. A plausible surmise would be that after expulsion of the Jews from Koine in A. D. 52 by Claudius, Philo saw strong need of diverting from himself and associates the indig- According to Dio Cassius (59, lO), Caligula “forced (Macro) to the necessity of suicide, though he had appointed him over Egypt.” This is uncpiestionably one of the patrician accounts such as attribute the death of Sejanus to Tiberius. The desperate position of the rebel leaders at Alexandria and the dangerous position of those at Rome ren- ders not improbable that some among them effected Macro’s murder and called it suicide. Josephus says (Antiq. 18, 8, l) that each delegation consisted of three individuals. Philo {Embassy to Caiics, c. 45, p. 730) mentions that the J ewish one numbered five. The heathen delegation was headed by Apion. Josephus, Antiq. 19, 5, 2. Philo speaks in his woxk Against Flaccus (c. 18, p. 677, lines 17, 18) of the matters there treated as already antiquated. In the beginning of his Embassy he treats himself as aged and gray-headed. 104 JUDAISM AT HOME. [CH. V. nation of Jews generally at his sympathy and co-operation with that Eoman aristocracy whose tool Claudius was. The need of this diversion would not be diminished by the fact that Philo’s nephew had turned heathen and ac- cepted office from Claudius as stated in note 70. The two works above mentioned justify disbelief in Philo’s truthfulness. The one Against Flaccus represents tliat a governor, remarkable during five years for clear- headed equity, became, in the six montlis before he was kidnapped, a model of injustice.^^ Yet the same work states — and perhaps intends as a reason why he was kidnapped instead of being openly arrested- — that he was EXCEEDINGLY esteemed TrAetcrro) /xepet fijs ttoXcco? — by nearly all the city,”^^ — a remark wdiich 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 Sej anus the measures against the Jews in the time of Tiberius.^^ We have, however, con^ vincing evidence that they proceeded from the patricians,^^ who afterwards murdered Sejanus, and who were 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.^^ But Philo lived when he 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 (grandson 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 Pliilo well knew, suhseqimitly to the kidnapping of Flaccus, so that his gubernatorial conduct, as Philo also knew, could not have been infiu* enced by it. Philo, Against Flaccus, c. 13 ; Paris edit* p. 673, line 20* Against Flaccus, c. 1 ; Embassy to Caius, c. 24. 93 See Ch. YIIL §i. 9* Embassy to Caius, c. 6 ; Paris edit. p. 686, line 1. §viiT.] SYMPATHY BETWEEN THE ABISTOCRACIES. 105 cannot possibly have been ignorant that Tiberius and Macro were friends of Sejanus, who had punished, not him, but his murderers.^^ The proceedings against the Alexandrine conspirators were in course of execution in a. d. 38, after the death of the emperor’s sister, Drusilla,^^ and about August 31, the date of Caligula’s birthday.^^ Yet Philo represents them as carried out under the direction of Flaccus, who, ac- cording to his own statement, liad been kidnapped in the preceding year. Herod, by his regal splendor, outshone the governor.^^ Yet Philo ascribes to modesty tlie furtive entry of this would-be king into Alexandria.^^ The Senate, a body hostile to Caligula and greedy to recover its ancient power, had made Herod its general in a province or provinces where it for nearly seventy years had been destitute of control. It authorized him to override Caligula’s governor, and this during Calig- ula’s illness. Yet Pliilo wislies us to believe that Herod liad been appointed king by Caligula. The stay of Herod at Alexandria was evidently for weeks or months.^^^ Yet Philo wishes us to believe that See Appendix, Note G, § nr. ^ Against Flaccus, c. 8 ; Paris edit. p. C68, line 17. Against Flaccus, c. 10; Paris edit. p. 670, line 42. “He attracts all eyes towards liimself when they see the aiTay 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. See note 79. See reference in note 77. 101 <‘Xhe residence here of this man meaiis 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 << They [the 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 emplo}^ed 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 kingj the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders 106 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. V. the cause of his coming to Alexandria was his haste 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.^^^ 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.^^^ The Jewish aristocracy must stood on each side of him instead of spear-hearers, 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, Agamst Flaccus, cc. 5, 6, Bohn’s trans. ; Paris edit. pp. 665, 666. 103 “ The 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. “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. 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. MUllDER OF BODY-GUARDS. 107 §ix.] at first have had enough success to make them think of exacting terms for capitulation.^^ 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, we 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 Pome indicates.^^^ 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 tlie aggressors, we can comprehend his remarkable brevity.^^® When we come to the reign of Caligula, we shall find that his alleged appointment of Herod Agrijipa 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 was 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 lOG 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. Compare pages 76, 77. 108 a ^ dissension having arisen at Alexandria between the Jewish in- habitants and the Greeks, three ambassadors chosen from either side came to Caius.” — Josephus, Antiq., 18, 8, 1. 108 JUDAISM AT HOME. [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.^^^ § 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,^^^ 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 << Galba’s entry into the city of Eome, after the massacre of several thousands of unarmed soldiers, formed a disastrous omen of things 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 trans. At an earlier date Claudius had been concerned in a conspiracy against Caligula, one of whose murderers, Sabinus, committed suicide. Another, Chferea, 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 KOMANS.” — JosephUS, Alltiq. 19, 4, 5. “ Claudius having taken out of the way every soldier whom he sus- pected.” — Josephus, Jntiq. 19, 5, 1. 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 prince or pre- siding officer of the Senate, he must have found civil and military offices mainly tilled by partisans of the aristoc- racy, a portion of whom were plotting his overthrow. The Coniitia, or popular assemblies, had, in the time of Augustus, been deprived of some, or, if Tacitus do not exaggerate, of nearly all power.^^^ Tlie Senate, while Augustus, at a distance from Home, 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.^^^ The Senate took the matter into its own hands, ignoring utterly any popular electoral right. 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 year’s experience, have yielded to a desire of mitigating the evil which it could not cure. Opposing candidates were, in A. D. 15, 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. 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 proetors.” — Smith, Diet, of Antiq. p. 353, col. 1. It is plain from Tacitus {An. 1 , 8i) 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 [CH. V. JUDAISM AT ROME. put in nomination.^^^ 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.^^^ Possi- ^ 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, 81) 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. “ The elections Co^nitia were then first transferred from the Campus [Martins, that is, from the people] to the Senate ; for though the [preced- ing] prince had conducted all affairs of moment at his pleasure, yet, till that day, some were still transacted according to the inclination of the tribes. Neither did the regret of the people for the seizure of these their ancient rights rise higher than some impotent grumbling ; the Senate, too, released from the charge of buying votes, and from the shame of begging them, willingly acquiesced in the reg- ulation by which Tiberius contented himself with the recommendation (?) of four candidates only, to be accepted without opposition or canvassing.” — Tac. An. 1, 15, Bohn’s trans. altered. A. D. 15. Of the Comitia for the creation of consuls, which took place in the REIGN OF Tiberius for the first TIME IN THIS YEAR, and in each suc- cessive year, I hardly dare affirm any-- thing, so different are the accounts about it. His general practice was to declare, ‘that TO him none had SIGNIFIED their PRETENSIONS BUT THOSE WHOSE NAMES HE HAD DELIV- ERED TO THE consuls; others, too, might do the same, if they had confi- dence in their interest or merits.’ Sentiments plausible in terms ; in substance, hollow and insidious ; and the greater the semblance of liberty with which they were covered, the more remorseless the slavery in which they would issue.” — Tac. An. 1, 81, Bohn’s trans. 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 TWO SENATORIAL USURPATIONS. Ill §x.] 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 liis being assassinated. 2. In A. D. 18 and 19, the Senate had sent Germanicus, a nephew of Tiberius, into Syria and elsewhere, to override his uncle’s authority, and to manage matters in the interest of the patricians. The death ot 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 Koman 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 liave caused a tierce 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 wlien committed by the Senate, were things to be overlooked, omits any narrative of the struggle. He even omits direct mention of tlie 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.^^^ 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 century. The authorization is placed by Tacitus (An. 2 , 43) in A. D . 17. Germanicus set out in a. d. 18. The concerted effort at rebellion took place in A. d. 19. See Ch. YIII. § i. 117 “ We (?) 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.^^^ The pretext for usurpation of jurisdiction is matter for conjecture.^^^ § XI. Herod Agrippa, Senior, The earlier history of Herod is elsewhere mentioned.^20 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.^2^ While thus engaged, Herod, as we may judge from his extravagant habits,^^‘^ must have become a companion of the aristocracy, and perhaps of their plots. At a later date he visited Tiberius at Capreae, 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] Drusiis, 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. 118 See Ch. VIII. § i. 11 ^ The Senate which in A. D. 14 abrogated, by ignoring, the Comiiia^ 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, Diet. ofAntiq. 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, T9), by a prretor ; and only, perhaps, in the event of condemnation before such a court, could his case have been submitted to the Comitia, i2t> See pp. 99, 100. 121 Josephus, Antiq. 17, 6, 6. 122 << jje 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, 6, 3, Whiston’s trans. HEROD AGRIPPA, SENIOR. 113 §XI.] less a falsehood, originating with tlie 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.^^^ 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 hirn.^‘^^ The son of Herod was detained at Eome. The real object for this was doubtless that lie might be a host- age within reach of the Senate to secure fidelity towards their interests from his unprincipled fatlier. The need of security became evident afterwards. 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 by 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 impiison- ment of Herod under Caligula, but certainly not the one under Tiberius. 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 fQj. 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 Caesar of what he was doing. And, when Claudius had some suspicion of attempts for innovation, he sent to Agrippa to leave off the building of those walls presently.” — Josephus, Antiq. 19, 7, 2, Whiston’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 KOME. [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.^^® He showed him- self in matters of social and political life a thorough dis- ciple of the Eoman aristocracy.^^^ 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 Pome 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 Eoman might, in a period of patrician ascendency, meet dishonor from the leaders and enjoined them to go their ways home without further delay.” — : Josephus, Antiq. 19, 8, 1, Whiston’s trans. 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 , Whiston’s trans. “ He 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 , WUiiston’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 Eoman to be present in the forum or circus, unless they took off their short coats, and wore the toga.” — Suetonius, August, c. 40, Bohn’s trans. INSINCERITY OF PATRICIAN HOBBIES. 115 § XII.] of that party, and yet its leaders would at other times adopt foreign dress as a means of winning foreign favord^^ The same voices that decried foreign customs and servile descent were prompt to uphold either of them which could be made subservient to patricianisni, or to its ally, heathenism.^2^ 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 Eomans into it, if the former were more in sympathy with patricianism.^^^ Eoman According to Tacitus (An. 2, 50 ), 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. ‘‘ 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, Bohn’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 Cains 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. YII. note 95, senatorial action whereby the priesthood of Yesta 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 ^Eduans first obtained the privilege of admission into the Roman Senate, in consideration of their ancient confederac}'^ with Rome, and because they 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, 23 ) mainly, no doubt, by the 116 JUDAISM AT DOME. [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 wdth 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 Rome’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 aristocrac}’- thus selected for senatorial privileges had no doubt common interests wdth that at Rome, and had perhaps been its ally in the con- spiracy against Caligula. Romans were about the same time (Dio Cass. 60, 11, 29 ) expelled from the Senate on the charge of not being wealthy enough. §1.] BELIEF OF home’s IMPENDING DESTHUCTION. 117 The Jews, instead of looking backward for a golden era, as was done by Greeks and liomans, anticipated tlieirs in the future. To them its chief feature was the universal righteousness, which they, unlike tlieir 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 eraJ 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 Eomans. 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 witli it in the Jewish mind, was a sup- position that it would be introduced by a subjugation or thorough destruction of Pome. 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 eartliquakes, — 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 Pome, that a king was about to be born for the Pomans ; 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 Poman Emperor as Beliar, or, to use a still later phraseology, as Antichrist. 1 See mention of expected Prophets in the Sibylline Oracles, 3 , 780, quoted in Appendix, Note A, § ii. 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 §11. No. 1, of this chapter. 118 JUDAISM AT EOME. [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.^ 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.^ 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 Eome, in her unrepentance, would perish seven centuries after her foundation. The latter view w^as 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, Eome should ^ I once laid aside a newspaper containing some account of a widow in Hindostan burning lierself after her husband’s deathr 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. ^ 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, 9 ), “ 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 tenned 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, o, Laurence’s trans. (corresponding to 2 Esdras, 14, 11 , com. vers.). In the Sibylline Oracles ( 8 , 199 - 205 ) we are told that “ when the tenth generation shall be in Hades . . . [God] will render the earth a desert 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.'^ 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 jjarry or weaken the former of these view^s.^ Possibly JeAvisli 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.® ^ See the Jewish view in § ii. No. 4, of this chapter. In what I sup- pose to he part of the Erythraean 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, 108 , 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 Avas 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, 28 , 29 . In Dio Cassius, 57, 18 , and 62, 18 , the form of expression is that “when thrice three hundred years shall 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. ® See Appendix, Note A, § vi. ® Censorinus, in his Avork De Die Nataliy 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, Avas a hundred years. In the Epitome of Livy, Book 49, is a passage, not the one quoted by Censorinus, Avhich mentions games as “ celebrated in the Cen- tennial year.” Censorinus in the same Avork 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 Avritten 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 KOME. [CH. VI. § II. Jeioish 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 Whether it existed witli slight difference at an earlier date, is a question which at least deserves consideration.^ “ 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 books. 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 w^ere 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 Etruscan 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. ^ 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 /cat §11.2.] 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. 60 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, 65 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. “ O self-confident Rome ; — after the Macedonian phalanx Thou wilt shine to Olympus ; but God will make thee Totally unheard of. When thou seemest to the eye AiytJTTToVf 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 Octavius 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, i) 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, los - 112, No. 3. The earthquake mentioned in this, points out B. c. 63 ^ 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 givend^ The doings of Pompey and the extortions of Flaccus,^^ 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 Ma3otic 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 : lassis, Cebra, Pandonia, Colophon, Ephesus, Nicsea, Antioch, Tanagra, Sinope, Smyrna, Marosune ; Of Europe : Scyagra, Clitus, Basilis, Meropsea, 346 Antigone, Magnesia, Mycene, Panthsea, Gaza, the all-blessed, Hierapolis, Astypalsea. Know then, Egypt’s destructive race is near destruction ; And then, to the Alexandrines, the bygone year will be the better.'® Whatsoever 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 0 tender, wealthy virgin, offspring of Latin Rome,'* ^ 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. Yol. 1, p. 292, ed. Sturz. The cities mentioned by Eusebius in his Chrmiicon as overthrown in A. D. 17 are Ephesus, Magnesia, Sardes, Mosthene, ^Egae, Hierocaesarea, Philadelphia, Tmolus, Teinnus, Myrhina, Apollonia, Dia, Hyrcania. " See in the next chapter under B. c. 62. Year is used for time, meaning that the Alexandrines had seen their best days. 13 Yirgin, offspring of Rome. This, in Jewish phraseology, means inhabitants of Rome. In the Old Testament we find Daughter of Zion, § II, 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 haird^* Justice,^^ 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. Samos shall be ‘ Sandheap,^ Delos [the visil)le] shall be invisible,^® Rome shall be ‘ Ruin,^ and all [heathen] oracles come to an end.'^^® Sibyl. Orac. 3, 337 - 364. No. 4. The question whether this extract makes any hostile mention of tlie Eomans must 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 Eome, 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 liuman slaughter. Destruction of mortals and also of lowing cattle. Of four-footed herds and patient asses, lO 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 Peoqde, for the Jews, Jer. 9, 1 ; Daughter of Tyre, for the Tyrians, Ps. 45, 12 ; Daughter of Babylon, for the Babylonians, Ps. 137, 8 ; Daughter of the Chaldeans, for the inhabitants of Chaldiea, Is. 47, 1,5; Daughter of Edom, for the Edomites, Lam. 4, 21 ; Daughter of Egypt, for the Egyptians, Jer. 46, 11 ; Daughter of Zidon, for the Zido- nians. Is. 23, 12. A samqde of annoyances endured by slave-women. For A lktju read ALkt}. Delos was the chief slave-market. The concluding words are sometimes translated, “ all [i. e. Sibylline] oracles will be 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. YI. Among most mortals, and temples he 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 Of seven-hilled Home, and great wealth shall perish, Consumed in a vast conhagration by Vulcan’s flame. And thereafter [shall be] bloody [drops] descending from heaven,** 19 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 b« 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.^ Aaov, 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 EoTnanus^'' 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 eommon people as contrasted with the aristocracy. 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 larvse of a fly found nowhere but in the island of Sardinia.” — Harper’s Weekly, June 5, 1869, p. 359. The absence of any verb from the preceding line renders it probable that something has been left out here. On the meaning of evaeprjs, see Appendix, Note B, § i. 5. § II. 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,^' 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.^^ It may liaA^e borne a purple or a gilded dragon’s head for its beak, or have been fashioned, in some way, like a dragon.^^ 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 tliat Ves- pasian “proceeded with greater speed to Alexandria, tliat 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 , Bohn’s trails. 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, JUDAISM AT KOME. 126 [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 ahiindance 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 Homans, 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 Sliall you go naked, and finally shall come to judgment As having judged unjustly; You alone with your giant-hands over the whole earth. loo 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. Adorn yourselves with images of gold and silver And jewelled ones, that you may come to the bitter day. Contemplate your first punishment, 0 Home, 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 Koinan power with a flame-colored — or, perhaps, a gold-colored — dragon by the author of the Apocalypse (Eev. 12, 3), who wrote at about this date, I surmise that it was already an emblem of Eoman authority. 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 generation of Latin kings, Will fill out [their] allotted^® 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 Eome 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, 0 Father of all, the productive region, the fruitful, Great Judaea, 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 Eoman prov- ince after the time of Julius CaBsar, who, doubtless, was reckoned as one of the fifteen kings.^^ 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 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. The omission of one letter, so as to read vardrov for va-rdnov, 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-centiiry Phoenix, A race shall come that it may plunder ‘ The People,’ “ 140 A nation [to plunder] the unscattered tribes of Hebrews.^® 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.*® 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,^^ 155 Watching around, — attacking all, — leaving the sea behind him, — The original is corrupted ; for iropdrja-cjv read TropO'qa-ov^ and for \aQv read \aou or else the Attic form \ciov. 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 : — 7rop0rj. 100. Trajan, accordingly as we omit, or count, Galba, Otho, and Yitellius, was the eleventh, or the fourteenth emperor, so that this supposition seems inadmissible. In ch. 11, 23, 24 (Lat. vers. 11, 21), according to the yEthiopic and Vul- gate, some — according to the Arabic, one — aimed at imperial power, but did not reign. If we adopt the former reading and understand it as meaning some of the twelve, it could only be understood of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, and would favor the date under Domitian. If some out- side of the twelve be meant, it would favor the date under Hadrian. The loss of the original Greek leaves to us merely the understanding, or misunderstanding, of translators. This should not too readily be taken against evidence less likely to be essentially mistranslated. The large head (ch. 11, 35; Lat. vers. 11, 31), which eats the smaller heads, or wings, or feathers, — for the versions vary, — if interpreted of an emperor putting out of his way heads of the aristocracy, would be applicable to Domitian or Hadrian, but more readily to the latter. The remnant of Domitian’s reign after his contest with the aristocracy was too brief to have called forth this work. This conception that the Messiah, at the close of his reign, should die, appears both in the ^Efchiopic and Latin versions, but not in the Arabic. It accords with the view which Justin {Dialog, c. 49, 0pp. p. 26S A) puts into the mouth of the Jew Trypho, that the Messiah was to be a human being. Laurence’s translation of Ezra (or 2 Esdras), ch. 5, 23 -3S. Com- pare Lat. vers. ch. 7,23-34. §11.10.] BELIEF OF ROME’S IMPENDING DESTRUCTION. 133 In the above the allusion to the destruction of Eome is only found if we adopt the ^thiopic text. Another passage, however, contains, according to any of the three versions now extant, a plain afhrrnation of Eome’s downfall as a precedent of the Messiah’s coming. Ezra (ch. 11, 1-39; Lat. vers. 11, 1-35) sees an Eagle, ob- viously an emblem of the Eoman Empire, and explained to be such in a subsequent chapter of his work. Tlie Eagle flew with his wings to reign over the earth and over them who dwelt therein, that lie might render all things under heaven subject to himself. Xor was there any who opposed him, no not one.” Afterwards (11, 41 ; Lat. vers. 11, 37) Ezra hears a Lion’s roar wliose voice resembles a man’s. It is the Lion of the tribe of Judah, or the Messiah, who thus addresses the Eagle : '' Hear thou and I will speak to thee. To thee thus says the Most Higli : ' Art not thou the last of the four beasts Avhom I made to reign over the world, that by them the ends of the times miglit arrive ? The fourth which is to come to subdue all the beasts that were before him, and to oppress the world and them with great trouble and affliction. Inhabiting the world for so long a period, in- habiting it with deceit, thou liast not judged it in truth. For thou hast oppressed the righteous ; injuriously treated the meek, hated the upright, and loved liars ; hast de- stroyed the strongholds of the righteous, and removed the walls of them who have not injured thee. Thy crimes have ascended to the Most High, and thy pride to the Almighty ; who has contemplated his [creature] man. And behold the consummation and end of the world has arrived. Tlierefore, 0 Eagle, thou shalt surely perish ; thy wicked wings, thy impious heads ; thy malicious talons, and iniquitous body ; that the earth may be at rest, relieved from any affliction, being relieved from thee ; and that she may hope for the judgment and mercy of him who made her.’ ” In the follov/ing chapter an angel explains to Ezra the Laurence’s translation of Ezra (or 2 Esdras), ch. 11, 42-53 (Lat. vers. ch. 11, 3S-4(‘). 134 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VI. meaning of what he had seen : With respect to the Lion which thou sawest rising up out of the held, roaring and speaking to the Eagle and rebuking him for all his crimes ; the interpretation of what thou hast heard is, that this is the seed of David whom the Most High has kept to the latter days. This is he who shall come, and coming shall tell them of their sins and reprove them for their iniquities. He shall fully display to them their wilful proceedings, having previously placed them before his judgment seat alive. And when he shall rebuke them then shall they be utterly destroyed. As to the remainder of ' The People,’ them will I redeem in mercy, those who have been saved in my [first] judgment [at the beginning of the millennium] and he [that is, the Mes- siah] shall make them joyful until [after the millen- nium] the day of [second] judgment arrives, of which I have spoken to thee from the beginning.” Additional extracts containing Jewish expectations of Pome’s destruction will be given hereafter. One, based upon Caligula’s alleged performances, will be found when we come to § v. Others connected with Nero’s return will be found in Note F of the Appendix. § III. Boman Apprehensions, Almost every nation contains persons of desponding dispositions, who, in times of disaster, fear the national downfall. As the present, however, is a v^ork upon Judaism, we are only in so far concerned with Roman apprehensions as they may have originated with, or been stimulated by, Jews. In the chronological cliapters of our work, we shall find reason to suspect, or believe in, such Jewish origin, or stimulus, while examining the years B. c. 63, 49, 44, 17 ; A. d. 19, 41, 52, 64, and per- haps other periods. There are, however, two passages of Horace which can, Laurence’s translation of Ezra (or 2 Esdras), ch. 12, 36-41 (Lat. vers. ch. 12, 31 - 3 !). VIEWS OF JEWISH AND SEMI-JEWISH CHRISTIANS. 135 perliaps, be as conveniently considered in the present as in any other connection, the first of these was written in B. c. 27, whilst the Sibylline passage numbered 1, in the preceding section, was probably yet in circulation. The words of Horace are found in an ode addressed to Augustus : '' Whom of the gods shall the people call to [aidj the perishing empire ? Witli what prayer shall the Sacred Virgins weary Vesta, too inattentive to their hymns ? ” The other is from the sixteenth Epode, which con- cludes by imitating and burlesquing Jewish Sil)ylline Verses.^^*^ This leaves little doubt that Horace laid the popular despondency, in part at least, at the door ot the Jews. His reference to Itoman despondency is as fol- lows : — The soil will again be occupied by wild beasts. The Barbarian cavalry, alas, will stand victorious on the aslies and tread with sounding hoof the city. . . . Jso determination is better than this, to go ; as the Phocians Hed . . . whithersoever our feet may carry us. . . . This is my decision. Can any one advise better ? Why do we delay our auspicious embarkation ? But [first] let us swear to the following : ' When stones float ... it shall not be impious to return.’ ” In the Appendix, ISTote A, § vi., attention will be called to the Centennial Ode, or Age Song, of Horace, written for the celebration in B. c. 17. In the present connection it is noteworthy that he therein restricts his promise of future dominion for Borne to the narrow limits of Italy. The reader, moreover, will, by returning to No. 9 of the preceding section, find attributed to the Eoman populace a belief that destruction hung over the city. § IV. Vicius of Jewish and Semi- Jewish Christians. Among Christians the belief of Borne’s impending destruction was confined apparently to the Jewish and Horace, Odes, 1 , 2, 25 - 28 . See Appendix, Note A, foot-note 71. Horace, Epode 16 , lines 10 - 26 . 136 JUDAISM AT EOME. [CH. VI. semi- Jewish classes. Of the former class we shall have occasion to speak whilst considering the Apocalypse in the time of Vespasian. From the latter class two ex- tracts will be found below others will be given in the Appendix under § ill. of Note F. Gibbon ignores the existence of the foregoing belief among Jews and Eomans. He treats it exclusively as Christian, and apparently as restricted to no particular class of Christians.^^ 46 < < There is another and greater necessity of praying for . . . sta- bility of the empire ... to us who know that the great destruction impending over the whole world and therewith the close of this age threatening dreadful sufferings {acerhitates) are retarded by prolongation comineatu of the Roman Empire.” — Tertull. A]3ol. c. 32. Compare c. 39 ; ad Scap. 2 ; de Or at. 5. “All nations will be in arms, ... of which havoc and confusion this will be the cause, that the Roman name by which the world is now gov- erned (the mind dreads to say it, but I will say it because it will occur) shall be destroyed from the earth, and supreme authority shall return to Asia. The East shall again rule and the West be subservient. . . . The Sibyls say openly that Rome shall perish and indeed by the judgment of God, because she hated his name and being an enemy to justice de- stroyed [a] people, the foster-child of truth.” — Lactant. Inst. 7, 15. 47 << Whilst the happiness and glory of a temporal reign were promised to the disciples of Christ, the most dreadful calamities were denounced against an unbelieving world. The edification of the new Jerusalem was to advance by equal steps [?] with the destruction of the mystic Babylon ; and as long as the emperors who reigned before Constantine persisted in the profession of idolatry, the epithet of Babylon was applied to the city and to the empire of Rome. A regular series was prepared of all the moral and physical evils which can afflict a flourishing nation ; intestine discord, and the invasion of the fiercest barbarians from the unknown regions of the North [?] ; pestilence and famine, comets and eclipses, earthquakes and inundations. All these were only so many preparatory and alarming signs of the great catastrophe of Rome, when the country of the Scipios and Cfesars should be consumed by a flame from heaven, and the city of the seven hills, with her palaces, her tem- ples, and her triumphal arches, should be buried in a vast lake of lire and brimstone The Christian who founded his belief much less on the fallacious arguments of reason than on the authority of tradition and the interpretation of scripture .... considered every disaster that THE ROMAN EMPEROR AS BELIAR. 137 §v.] § V. The Roman Em'peror as Bdiar. Origin of the Conception called Antichrist. At some date between the death of Caligula in a. d. 41, and the expulsion of the Jews by Claudius in A. D. 52, an idea was added to the belief of Home’s destruction, namely, that its then reigning emperor, Claudius, should, as the head of Heathenism, set himself up against the Deity and be destroyed, and that his destruction should precede the new era. To the emperor, in this partly supernatural capacity, the title of Beliar^ was appropriated. Nero, at a later date, superseded all recollection of Claudius as the expected individual, and, in place of the term Beliar, that of Antichrist came into use, probably because of anticipated conflict between him and the expected, or re- expected, Christ. The circumstances which gave rise to this conception were as follows. The Jewisli aristocracy at Alexandria had, during a violent illness of Caligula, made themselves the tools of patrician leaders at Borne in a rebellion happened to the empire as an infallible symptom of an expiring world.” — Gibbon, Rome^ ch. 15. ‘‘Second Cause”; Vol. 2, pp. 84, 85 ; edit, of 1816, Philada. A son of Belial means a child of wickedness, or of Heathenism ; for in the Jewish mind the two ideas were associated. In the following passage of Paul: “What participation is there between righteousness and LAW-lessness; . . . what harmony has Christ with BelLar.” — 2 Cor. 6, 14 - 15 . Beliar (common version, Belial) seems used for the impersona- tion of heathenism. Compare in Ascension of Isaiah, 4, 2 (quoted in Ap- pendix, Note F, § III.) the term Berial. The epistles of John, written probably between A. D. 64 and A. D. 80, though they use the term Antichrist in a metaphorical sense for any, or many, opponents, yet assume in their readers a prior knowledge of Anti- christ as of an individual personage. “It is the last hour, and as ye have heard that [in the last hour] Antichrist is to come, already many anti- christs have come into existence, whence, we recognize that it is the last hour.” — 1 John 2, 18. “ Many deceivers have appeared [literally, have come into the world] who do not confess that Jesus Christ has corporally [that is, actually] come. Such a one is ‘The Deceiver,’ and ‘The Anti- christ.’ ” — 2 John, verse 7. Compare 1 John 2, 22 ; 4, 3. 138 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VI. aarainst him. This must have disgusted the Jewish com- monalty who knew patricianism as their most unscrupu- lous opponent. The accession to power of this patrician element under Claudius may have restored political au- thority to its Jewish allies, but could not free them from popular odium. To mitigate, or parry, this odium they invented and circulated the most extravagant stories of self-deification by Caligula, and of his having intended placing his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem. The re- sult renders probable that they endeavored to obtain credence by representing the head of the Eoman Empire as by his position the enemy of God. During their efforts measures were in progress at Eome for limiting Judaism and re-establishing worship of the Pagan deities. When these measures culminated by expulsion of the Jews, we can discern among the latter a belief which had been developed, that Claudius, as special enemy of the Deity, was to be destroyed, and that thereupon the new era would be introduced. The following production, by its allusion to Agrippina, bears evidence that it was written between A. D. 49 and A. D. 54. We shall find in the chronological part of our narrative abundant reason for placing it about A. D. 52. The opening lines are based upon actions of Caligula, though stated in such a way as to give them a partly miraculous appearance. Possibly some Jews may have credited already the misrepresentations which both the Jewish and Eoman aristocracy circulated concerning that emperor, but it is more probable that such credence originated at a later date. “ From THE RACE OF CjESARS at last shall Beliar come And shall create high mountains and still the sea,®^ More literally, hut less expressively, from the August!.’' There is but one and the same word in the original, a-T'^o-ei, for the three translations, “create,” “still,” and, more doubtfully, “place.” In the last instance it may mean “quiet the dead,” and may refer to tlie attention manifested by Caligula, promptly after his accession (Suetoii. Calig. 15) towards the ashes of his mother and brother. By Caligula “ moles were thro\vn into a deep and rough sea, and THE ROMAN EMPEROR AS BELIAR. 139 § V.] Shall create a big flaming sun, and brilliant moon,“ 65 And place [?] the dead, and do many wonders Before men, yet permanent things shall not be in him. But deceitful ones, and he shall mislead many mortals, Both faithful and chosen Hebrews and others LAW-less Men, who have never yet hearkened to the word of God, 70 But when the threats of the great God shall draw near. And flaming power pour in a flood upon the earth, It shall burn Beliar, and the proud men All, as many as have put their trust in him. At that time, by the wiles of a wife shall the world 75 Be governed, and obey her in all things,^* rocks of the hardest flint were cut away and fields raised to mountains by filling, and mountain-tops levelled by digging, and, indeed, with incredi- ble celerity, since delay was capitally punished.” — Sueton. Calig. 37. The concluding remark is no doubt false. What precedes it is at least extravagant exaggeration. According to the same writer in c. 19, and to Dio Cassius, 59, 17, he made a bridge of boats, or vessels, two or three (?) miles long, across the Bay of Bai.Te, — an indentation on the north side of the Bay of Naples, — and rode across it on horseback and in a chariot. Tlie placidity of the sea while the bridge was being fastened together prompted him to remark (Dio Cass. 59, 17) that Neptune was afraid OF HIM. After Caligula crossed the bridge with his companions ‘‘they feasted during the remainder of the day and the whole night with much [arti- ficial] light in the spot itself, and much illuminating them from the mountains, for the locality being moon-shaped [a semicircle of hills around a semicircular bay], fire was visible on all sides, as in a theatre, so that there was no perceptible darkness ; for he wished to turn night into day as elsewhere sea into land.” — Dio Cassius, 59, 17. Some of the feasters may have likened the illumination to the moon. Others may have alleged that it surpassed the moon and equalled the creation of sun- light. “From this moment [when Claudius married Agrippina] the city assumed a different character, and a woman had the control of every- thing. . . . The despotism exercised was as strict as though it were under the direction of a man ; in her ]uiblic conduct she was grave and rigid, frequently haughty and overbearing ; . . . while an insatiable thirst for money was veiled under the pretext of its uses in maintaining the im- perial authority. . . . [After Caractacus was brought prisoner to Rome] the people were summoned to see him as a rare spectacle, and the prae- torian bands stood under arms in the field before the camp. Then first the servants and followers of the British king moved in procession, . . . 140 JUDAISM AT EOME. [CH. VI. But when she shall be a widowed ruler over the whole earth, And shall cast her gold and silver into the great sea And the brass and iron [ornaments ?] of short-lived mortals Into the deep, then shall all the elements 80 Of the world be widowed, when God who dwells in Ether Shall roll up the heaven as a book is rolled up^ And the whole diversified heaven shall fall on the earth and sea And an inexhaustible cataract of raging flame shall pour out, Which shall burn the earth and burn the sea 85 And melt the heavenly revolution, and days [consequent thereon] And creation's self into one mass and refine it to purity. No longer shall there be spheres of rejoicing luminaries Nor night nor morning, nor multiplied days of care. Nor spring, nor summer, nor winter, nor autumn, 90 Then shall the judgment of the Great God be manifested, [The judgment] of that great age when all these things are to take place." In Ch. VIII. § V. will be found a fuller account of events in A. D. 52 - 54, which accompanied, or contributed to, the first public manifestation of belief in this conception. Its connection with Nero will be found in the Appendix, Note F, §§ II. III., in the former of which a quotation from Sibyl. Orac. 5, 34, should be noted. The conception of Antichrist has lasted, to the present day.^® and last himself, attracting the gaze of all. . . . The prisoners, released from their chains, did homage to Agrippina also, who, at a short distance, occupied another throne, in full view of the assembly, with the same ex- pressions of praise and gratitude as they had employed to the emperor. A spectacle this, strange and unauthorized by the customs of our ances- tors, for a woman to preside over the Eoman ensigns. . . . Agrippina also began to assert her preeminence more studiously, and even to enter the Capitol in a chariot, a distinction ... of old allowed to none but the priests and things sacred. . . .” — Tacitus, An. 12, 7, 36, 37, 42, Bohn’s trans. The same word which means widowed means also desolated, or laid waste. Books anciently were in the form of a scroll, opened by unrolling and closed by rolling up. Sibylline Oracles, 3, 63 - 92. “Some have maintained the opinion that Anti-christ will be Satan incarnate, but the more recent theologians reject this opinion as absurd, and hold that he will merely be under a high degree of diabolic influence. CHRONOLOGICAL NAPwRATIVE, B. C. 76. 141 § 1 .] CHAPTER VII. CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, B. C. 76 -A. D. 19. In the second century before the Christian era, Greeks influenced by Judaism must, and Jews may, have existed at Rome, but any evidence of a direct influence by the latter on Romans is uncertain^ Our earliest reliable evi- dence of such influence is during the year B, c. 76, at which date the following narrative begins. Tliere are three epochs in the chronology of our subject which will each demand a chapter. During the first of these, B. c. 76 to a. d. 19, no law forbade conversions to Judaism. The second period extends from a. d. 19, when fearful penalties were enacted against such conversions, to the destruction of Jerusalem in a. d. 70. The third epoch extends from this latter date to the close of the war under Hadrian, which isolated the Jews of Europe and ended, apparently, their direct influence on heathens. Some subsequent events will appear in Ch. XII. § I. 5. C. 76. The Erythrccan Verses cause Discussion of Monotheism. The managers of the senatorial faction had, since B. c. 461, created and nourished a superstitious reverence at Rome for books, which they kept secreted in their own charge, and which subsequently to B. c. 76, if not previ- ously, were attributed to a real or imaginary woman The period of the sway of Antichrist, it is supposed, will continue for three and one half years from the time when his power has reached its acme, after which he will he destroyed by an extraordinary interposition of the Almighty, a short time before the end of the world.” — New Am. Cyclopaedia, VoL 1, p. 654, col. 1. 1 See action by the Praetor for Foreigfters in B. c. 139 against worship- pers of Sabazian Jove (Jupiter Sabaoth?) mentioned in Ch. VIII. note 27. 142 JUDAISM AT EOMK [CH. VII. named Sibylla. These writings had perished in B. c. 83, in the burning Capitol. A Jew or monotheist at the present date took advantage of reverence for them and turned the tables on the patricians. He induced the Senate to bring from Erythrse in Asia Minor leaves in Greek verse, alleged to be of the same authorship, which were deposited in the senatorial arcliives. These leaves formed a connected composition which in unmistakable terms taught monotheism and other Jewish views.^ The recognition of this work by the Senate as on tlie same footing with the former, from which no appeal was per- missible, could not but prompt questions concerning the divine nature. An evidence of its doing so is that Cicero, writing thirty years afterwards '' On the Nature of the Gods,'' selects disputants who could only have met in this, or in part of the preceding, year.^ Either he deemed the year appropriate, or, more probably, he but filled out a conversation which had really taken place. The Senate must have acted with little or no scrutiny of this document, — written in a foreign language, — which subsequently proved so sore a thorn in their sides. Sixty years later stringent measures were taken to prevent its perusal. 2 See account of this document in Appendix, Note A, § ii. ^ Cotta, one of the speakers, died in b. c. 74 or 73. He and Cicero were never conjointly in the city after b. c. 76. Previously to this year Cicero had been in Greece and Asia, whither he went after his first en- trance as a young man upon public life, and whence he did not return until some time in B. c. 77. Ramsay, in SmitJis Did. of Biog. Vol. 1, p. 738, col. 2, regards the De Natura Deorum as published in b. c. 44, and the implied date of the conversation as “somewhere about the year B. c. 76.” On the same page, the same writer says : “In no production do we more admire the vigorous understanding and varied learning of our author.” Possibly the collision of Jewish witii heathen views had caused thorough debate on the subject in the Roman community. Among dif- ficulties which the Jews must have encountered was, that men, who had never thought of life save in connection with a physical body, could not readily comprehend an incorporeal God. One of Cicero’s speakers alleges {De Nat. Deor. 1 , 12, al. 30) that such a God “must necessarily be desti- tute of perception, sagacity, pleasure.” §11.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, B. C. 75-63. 143 § II. B. C. 75-63. Other Sibylline Verses. Kiny from the East. The reception of the above verses showed that Jewisli teachings in the name of Sibylla would coinniaiid a re- spectlul hearing, or a superstitious reverence, from the Ihjnians. Consequently other Jews committed tlieir teachings to verse and ascribed them to the same an- tlioress. Among tliese teachings is one of uncertain date whicli the reader will find in the Appendix, Xote A, foot- note 96. I suspect it to have been written during, or prior to, the year B. c. 63. If so, it will aid in explaining the heathen allusions, which we shall shortly meet, to an expected King for the liomans ” and “ King from the East.’’ The reader should also in this connection re- examine, under § ii. of the preceding chapter, the piece numbered 1, which may with slight variation have existed as early as B. c. 63. Both these pieces differ from the ErythraBan verses, by substituting a King for the Prophets of God. In the year B. c. 63, Pompey laid siege, during three months, to the temple at Jerusalem, and, after its capture, horrified its votaries by entering the Holy of Holies. This last procedure took place in the third month, which, as the Jewish year began near the equinox, means probably in June, or early in July.^ A tribute, which he imposed, did not diminish Jewish indignation. During this siege, or directly after its close, a fearful earthquake shook all Asia Minor, ^ and was felt even at Eonie.^ The Jews were ^ Joseplms, AntAq. 14 , 4, 3. ^ See Cli. VI. note 9. This earthquake took place not long before the death of .Mithridates, whose demise, according to Plutarch {Pomqjcy, c. 41), was announced by special messenger to Pompey while on an ex- pedition into Arabia Petraea. Jiuhna had, according to the same Avriter {Pompey, c. 39), been already subdued and reduced to the condition of a Roman province. This order of events seems more reliable than that of Dio Cassius who makes the Arabian expedition precede that into Jud?ea. ® Cicero, De Divinatione, 1 , (11), 18. 144 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. not unlikely to interpret it as a sign of God’s displeasure at the insult to his temple.*^ A Messianic excitement A Sibylline piece is still extant, which seems to have been prompted by the above events. It stands in immediate sequence upon the piece (3, 652 - 662, quoted in Appendix, Note A, foot-note 96) concerning a King from the East. Whether the two constituted originally but one piece, or whether the following lines were afterwards subjoined, may be a question. “ But again the Gentile kings against this Land Shall rush in force, bringing calamity on themselves. For the temple of the Great God and most eminent men Shall they wish to seize. When they enter the Land The polluted kings shall sacrifice around the city. Having each his throne and a disobedient People. The all-producing earth shall be shaken in those days By the Immortal hand, and the fish in the deep And all the wild beasts of the earth and countless tribes of birds- And all souls of men and the whole sea' Shall shudder under the Immortal look, and fright shall exist. All the well-made walls of evil-minded men Shall fall to the ground, because they recognized not the Law Nor the Judgment of the Great God. But with senseless mind Rushing, ye all raised spears against the temple. And God shall judge all by war and the sword, By fire and flooding rain. There shall be Sulphur from heaven, stones and hail. Frequent and destructive, and quadrupeds shall perish. And then they shall recognize the Imperishable God, whose judgments these are. Lamentation and battle-cry over earth’s expanse Shall come from perishing men. They shall lie speechless, Bathed in blood. Earth shall drink The blood of the perishing : wild beasts be satiated with their flesh. The Great Eternal God himself told me To prophesy these things. They shall not be unfinished Nor unfulfilled; since IT alone placed them in my mind. The Spirit of God [which] is without deception in the world.” Sibyl. Orac. 3, 663-701. In the foregoing the term “kings” seems to mean leaders or generals. The disobedient people may mean those Jews who had called in the Ro- mans. The allusion to war would favor the supposition that it was written during the siege of the temple, whilst Mithridates, the dreaded §11.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, B. C. 75-63. 145 among them would, under the circumstances, be natural. The llomans, moreover, were in the midst of alarm from Catiline’s conspiracy and from events which Cicero has deemed worthy of record as supposed portents.® They Avere not likely therefore to be less susceptible than usual to the infection of any such excitement. During, or immediately after, the above-mentioned Eastern events a report became current at Koine of which we have two Arersions ; one, that a king Avas about to be born for the Koman people, another, that he was to be born for the Avhole world. It must have attracted much attention, since in the midst of Catiline’s conspiracy it occasioned talk in the Senate. That body, being ap- parently in a jocose mood, passed a decree that no one born that year sliould be brought up. The decree was not registered, being regarded doubtless as a mere piece of Senatorial merriment. Marathus, hoAvever, a freedman of Augustus, Avhose account is copied by Suetonius,® treats it as sober earnest. It must have been passed in the latter part of August or the beginning of September, for on the 23d of the latter month it Avas still fresh enough to be the occasion of an additional Avitticism. On that day Angus- opponent of the Romans, was yet in arms. This date is further favored by the absence of any allusion to Pompey’s entering the Holy of Holies. The lines (702 sqq.) which follow the above extract might, at first sight, appear to be connected with them, but a close inspection will probably lead to an opposite conclusion. See part of them quoted in Note A of the Appendix, in the text prefixed to foot-note 70. ® Cicero committed to verse his mention of comets, a total eclipse of the moon in a starry night, a citizen killed by lightning when the sky w^as clear, an earthquake, and some other supposed prodigies. See Be Bivinationc^ 1, (11), 18. ^ “Julius Marathus is authority [for the statement] that, a few months before Augustus was born, there occurred at Rome a public prodigy, b}^ which notice was given that Nature was in labor with a king for the Roman people ; and that the frightened Senate enacted that no one born that year should be brought up ; but that those amongst them, whose wives were pregnant, hoping each that it pertained to him, took care that the decree of the Senate should not be registered in the treas- ury.” — Suetonius, Aicgustus, c. 94. j 146 JUDAISM AT EOME. [CH. VII. tus was born, and the Senate was engaged with business touching the Catiline conspiracy. The father of Augustus was delayed at home by the advent of his son. When the cause of the delay became known, Nigidius,^^ one of the Senators, remarked, humorously no doubt, that a lord was born to the whole earth.^^ The father of Aimaistus, if we may take the statement of Dio Cassius,^^ without his inferences, must have joined in the jest by suggesting the propriety of killing his new-born son, from which his friend, in like spirit it would seem, restrained him. The only natural explanation of the prevalent belief in a coming king for the Eomans and for the whole world P. Nigidius Figulus was “a Pythagorean philosopher, ... so celebrated on account of his knowledge, that Gellius does not hesitate to pronounce him, next to Varro, the most learned of the Romans. Math- ematical and physical investigations appear to have occupied a large share of his attention. . . . He . . . took an active part in the civil war on the side of Pompey ; was compelled in consequence by Csesar to live abroad, and died in exile B. c. 44.” — Smith, Diet, of Biog. Art. Figu~ lus. “On the day when Augustus was born, the fact that the Senate was occupied upon Catiline’s conspiracy, and that Octavius came late, in con- sequence of his wife’s confinement, gave notoriety to the event, that , Publius Nigidius, hearing the occasion of his delay, and the hour of his wife’s delivery, declared that a lord was born for the world.” — Sueto- nius, Augustus, c. 94. 12 “When the boy [Augustus] was born, Nigidius Figulus, a Senator, immediately predicted for him the sole monarchy. This [man] excelled those of his own time in his laying off the Heavens, and knew thoroughly the value of the stars, what their import was singly, and what when mingling with each other in clusters, or when opposed to each other by given intervals ; and on this account he has been charged with the cul- tivation of forbidden arts. This man asked Octavius, when he met him coming late to the assembly, on account of the birth of his son, — for there happened to be a meeting of the Senate that day, — why he had delayed; and, learning the cause, cried out, ‘You have begotten a lord for us,’ and then restrained him [Octavius], — who was troubled at this and wished to destroy his child, — by saying that it was impossible that such a child should suffer any such thing. These things were spoken of at that time.” — Dio Cass. 45, l, Vol. 2, p. 286 (Reim. pp. 419, 420). §m.] CIIRONOLOGICxiL NARRATIVE, B. C. 62-50. 147 is the supposition that it originated in a Messianic excite- ment among the Jews. There is no heathen source to which we can with ])lausibility attribute it. The prophets of evil, mentioned by Cicero, may either have been ex- cited Jews or heathens. § HI. B, C. 62 - 50. Conflict of Parties and Pi^eligious Ideas, Cicero a PLcactionist. The aristocracy, after their victory over Catiline, which, in some points, was a victory also over the common peo- ple, undertook to reward their partisans. Flaccus, one of their active assistants, was a])pointed, for the year B. c. 62, to the province of Asia.^^ Here he succeeded in filling his own pockets — and probably those of a good many satellites — nt the expense of the unfortunate inhabitants. One of his proceedings was to seize, as already mentioned,^^ all the gifts intended for the temple at Jerusalem. Cicero, in the year b. c. 59, defended liim by saying that this gold was duly weighed and paid into tlie treasury,^^ meaning apparently the provincial one. This defence implied that if the gold were to be repaid, it should be at expense of the provincial treasury. He forgot to add that Flaccus, by the pretence of fitting out a lleet and by other expe- dients, had known how to transfer the money again from the treasury to his own pockets, or those of his favorites. A brother of Cicero, named Quintus, was the successor of Flaccus and retained the position for three consecutive years, B. c. 61-59. He was a Stoic, not afraid to advo- cate some Jewish views,’' and was much more accepta- ble to the provincials^® than to the aristocracy at home. “Prophets, with inspired breast, poured forth through tlie land many predictions which threatened grievous mislortunes.” — Cicero, De Divinat. 1 , (11), 18. Asia means a portion of Asia Minor. See Ch. II. foot-note 32. Cicero, Pro Flacco, c. 28. See Appendix, Note A, foot-note 96. Cicero, who had aristocratic prejudices, writes to Quintus, two years after he had been in Asia, that self-restraint “ was always very easy 148 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. who deemed it their special perquisite to plunder the provinces. It is probable that his appointment and reten- tion in office were partly, at least, due to Jewish influence at Eome. More indubitable evidence of this influence on Eoman politics will be found in the already-mentioned speech of Cicero. He says : '' Next in order is that odium [caused by the seizure] of Jewish gold. . . . You know what a band there is of them, with what concord it acts, how MUCH IT CAN ACCOMPLISH IN [OUR] ASSEMBLIES. I will lower my voice so that only the judges can hear. For tliere are not wanting some who would incite them against me and against every prominent [or perhaps excellent] man ; whom I will not assist so as to make it easier for theni.”^^ This may be the language of irony, but, whether so or not, we must suppose that the Jews, though without office, had political influence ; else the language would have been ridiculous. The following from the same connection indicates pop- ular regard and reverence for their religion : “ Cneius Pom- to you. . . . When you resist, as you do, money, pleasure, the desire of all things [whatever], . . . the Greeks will regard you as one of ancient times, or even think you a divine man descended from heaven into the, province. . . . What can there be so excellent and desirable as that . . . wherever you come there is public and private joy, since the city seems to have received a guard, not a tyrant ; the home a guest, not a plunderer?” — Cicero, Epist. adFratrcm. 1, l, Vol. 3, pp. 530, 531, Le- maire’s edit. Quintus, however, had a sturdily honest, plain-spoken freedman, Statius, who aided him greatly. That a former slave should have a decision in important matters and a distribution of favors was galling to the aristocracy. Cicero remonstrated against it in his own name (p. 536), states in another letter that he did so, not of his own judg- ment, but as a means of acquainting Quintus with the talk of others (Ejnst. 2, p. 552), and then reiterates his former remonstrance, and adds, that all objections to Quintus were based on his freedman (p. 553). The reader must not infer that disgust at the elevation of a freedman pre- vented applications to him for office. Cicero writes: ‘‘How many, do you think, have applied to me for recommendation to Statius ? ” — EpisL ad Frairem. 1, 2, p. 553. Cicero, Pro Flacco^ c. 28. 149 §iil] chronological NARRATIVE, B. C. 62-50. pey, after the capture of Jerusalem, though a victor, touched notliiiig [to take it away] from that temple. . . . I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT [RESPECT FOR.] THE RELIGION OF Jews, and enemies, prevented that most worthy com- mander, but his own moderation.”^® Cicero would hardly have defended Pompey against suspicion of showing rev- erence to the Jewish religion, unless such reverence liad been common enough, even among the wealtliier classes, to justify the idea that Pompey might be infected with it. Still another passage implies that Jewish writings, or Jewish teachings, must liave been sufficiently known to ])oint the sarcasm which it contains. The Jews claimed that they were the especial favorites of heaven. Cicero must have liad this in mind while saying: “ IIow dear [that race] may be to the immortal gods is taught by their being conquered, expatriated, enslaved.” lie had in a previous sentence remarked : “ Peligious reverence for what they hold sacred, istorum religio sacrorum, is repug- nant to the glory of this [our] empire, to the dignity of our name.”^^ These expressions indicate a leeling widely removed Irom indifference, such as prevailed towards any religion save the Jewish. They imidy a struggle against Judaism and misgivings touching the result. Cicero had unblushingly defended, and the Senate had unscrupulously acquitted, a wrong-doer because he was their political comrade. The community lost patience, and a reaction followed. One item of the reaction was Cicero’s banishment, in B. c. 58. Anotlier item was the abolition, in the same year, of an existing edict against the Egyptian worship.^'-^" This meant that religions were not to be exclusively under patrician control. Some years later, about B. c. 54-51, Cicero wrote his De Repiiblica, a work intended for the defence of old cus- toms and patrician privileges. When he wrote it, Jewish teaching must already have been familiar, not merely to the common classes, but to the intelligent, for Cicero Cicero, Pro FlaccOf c. 28. Ihid, 22 22* See Appendix, Note H, foot-note 2. 150 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. in the sixth book not only perverts Jewish phraseology and the Jewish idea of judgment by teaching that devo- tion to the state was the highest form of piety and that heavenly rewards awaited such as showed this devotion, but he uses terms of which there can scarcely be a doubt that they were technical among monotheists. 23 The sixth book of the RepuUic contains, in imitation of a somewhat similar fiction by Plato, a document called Sciioid's Dream. It is extant both in Greek and Latin, and in either shape probably proceeded from Cicero. The Greek terms are certainly the originals, and must have been in his mind when penning the Latin ones. The document can be found in Lemaire’s edition of Cicero, 0pp. Philos. Yol. 5; the Latin [De Repuh- lica, 6, G-IT;) on pp. 372-394, and the Greek (cc. 2-9) on pp. 407-415. The document mentions (p. 408) a Supreme Being, dpxovrt deip, who ad- ministers the universe, dioiKovrTt rov Koa-fxor ; calls the universe (p. 409) his temple ; (compare Clement of Alexandria, Stromata^ 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 diKaiocruvr] and evae^eia, which, in Jewish phra- seology, mean righteousness and practical monotheism, and mentions (p. 408) TOTToy ojpLO-fjLhop, the “Allotted Place,” a term technical among semi- Jewish Christians (see Barnabas and Irenseus, 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 (hpLapLerou appointed time. Part of these views may have been borrowed at second-hand from discij)les of the Jews. The verses from Erythrse represented the care of ^Eneas for his parent and child as a practical recognition of God. Cicero, intentionally no doubt, misdefines ej)o-e/3eca (p. 409, or, in his translation, pp. 377, 378, piety) as meaning devotion to a parent or relative, and therefore in its highest form, as being devotion to the state. He lays down with the emphasis of Orthodoxy, “You must believe as follows: ‘To all who have . . . ENLARGED their country the attainment is made known of the Allotted Place in heaven, wdiere the blessed enjoy an endless age.’ ” — Page 408. Scipio’s (adoptive) father and grandfather are held up to him (p. 409) as models of this piety. He liimself (Scipio Africanus Minor; No. 21 in Smith’s Diet, oj Biog.) had changed the annual prayer for enlargement into one for preservation of the country. §IV.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, B. C. 49. 151 § IV. B. C, 49. Homans tlirov: avmy Idol Images durmg the Passover. We now come to an annual custom, mentioned by Dionysius of Haiicarnassus, which must have lasted a number of years, but whose origin and termination we have no means of accurately determining. Judging from the degree of calendrical derangement implied in tlie statement of Dionysius, he^^ or his informant must have witnessed the ceremony about B. c. 49. It consisted in a procession of Homan dignitaries, both civil and ecclesias- tical, on the first day of the Jewish Passover, to a sacred bridge over the Tiber, whence they threw into the stream thirty images, — representative doubtless of idols, — call- ing them Greeks, or Grecian.^^ Tlie words of Dionysius When Caesar regulated the calendar in b. c. 49, he inserted eighty extra days into that year, in order that its termination might agree with the now established computation. At the date to which Dionysius al- ludes, the eciuinox must have occuiTed between the 1st and 14th of May, — a discrepancy from present reckoning of not less than forty-two, nor more than fifty-six, days. The variation, therefore, from our calen- dar was less by between twenty-four and thirty-eight days than it was in B. c. 46. As, however, the difference between a lunar and a solar }"ear is about eleven days, there would have been about three years rcrpiisite between the date to which Dionysius alludes, and the year b. c. 46, for the increase of variation. This would carry us back to B. c. 49. Any error in assuming this date will not exceed a twelvemonth. Dionysius settled at Rome about B. c. 30. He may have visited there in B. c. 49, or his informant ma}^ have witnessed the ceremony in that year. Judaism had spread chiefly in countries where the language was Greek. The term Greek,” or “ Grecian,” became, therefore, to the Jews, a synon}nne for Gentile, or idolatrous. Thus Paul, in wa iting to his breth- ren, not in Greece, but at Rome, uses the term “Greek” (Rom. 1, lO; 2, »; 3, 9; 10, 12) as the antithesis for Jew'. It seems to have the same mean- ing in Acts 19, 10; 20, 21; 1 Cor. 10, 32 ; 12, 13; Galat. 3, 28 ; Coloss. 3, 11. Jerome (Vol. 8, p. 700 C) translates “Gentiles” wdiere the Chron- icon of Eusebius reads “ Greeks.” In the Sibylline Oracles the same use, if not indubitable, is more than probable, as in the following : — “Greeks [Gentiles?] shall again fight each other; Assyrians and Arabians and (piiver-bearing Medes, 152 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. are : This the Romans continued until my time to per- form a little after the spring equinox in the month of May, on what are called the Ides, for they wished it to he the MIDDLE DAY of the month. On this day the chief priests who are called pontiffs, having made sacrifices ac- cording to the laws and being accompanied by the virgins who guard the perpetual fire and by the prai^tors and such other citizens as can lawfully attend the sacred rites, throw (threw ?) images, in human form, thirty in number, from the sacred bridge into the river Tiber, calling them ‘ Greeks.’ But as regards the sacrifices and other sacred rites which Rome performs according to Grecian, or its OWN LOCAL CUSTOMS, we will elsewhere treat.” There can be scarcely a doubt that the custom origi- nated in some Sibylline admonition to throw away idols, in which case it cannot date further back than B. c. 76. The foolish explanation — not his own — which Diony- sius has prefixed to his narrative,'^^ shows that when he Persians and Sicilians, and the Lydians will revolt, [As also the] Thracians and Bithynians and dwellers hy the Nile.” Sibyl. Orac. 11, 173-176. Fifteen centuries have passed Since Greeks [Gentiles ?] were ruled by proud kings, Who initiated the chief crime for mortals, The many images of perishing gods for those who go to ruin.” Sibyl. Orac. 3 , 551-554. See also Book 3, 545, 564. In the former of which lines I notice that Alexandre, the French editor of these Oracles, understands “Greece” as meaning heathendom in general. In the caption of two works sometimes attributed to Justin Martyr, — Oratio ad Grmcos and Cohortatio ad GrcecoSy — and in that of Tatiaii’s work, Adversus Grcecos, the term “Greeks” is evidently used for Gentiles. The Jewish Passover began on the 15th of that month whose commencement, or new moon, was nearest to the spring equinox. The MIDDLE DAY of the Roman lunar month must necessarily have been the 15th. The shorter months had a middle day, and the longer ones liad not. 2^ Dionysius Halicarnass. 1, 38, Vol. 1, p. 97. Cp. Ch. IV. n. 13. 29 jy t]^at the ancients offered human sacrifices to Saturn, — a kind of sacrifices used at Carthage during its existence and among Gauls to this day, and among some others of the W estern nations. But Hercules, § IV.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, B. C. 49. 153 published his work, in B. c. 7, there can have been but few persons who recollected the first procession of this kind. The conservative party would naturally feel very sore at the remembrance of it. Yet any attempt to ex- plain it away must have proved difficult, if this were the most successful. The concluding remark of Dionysius evinces that the custom was well known not to be a Eoman one. He himself cannot have credited the expla- nation which he quotes, and may have meant it as a piece of dry liumor. Had the custom been of heathen origin, one titlie of the antiquity which he attributes to it would have placed it among the honored ancestral observances for the continuance of which the conservative party were sticklers. As Csesar became Pontifex Maximus in B. c. 63,^^ and was killed in B. c. 44, tlie ceremony must have existed in his official term and with his sanction. Whether he ever headed the procession is a point on which we have no historical statement. Under the year B. c. 49, Dio Cassius enumerates several wishing to abolish such a sacrificial custom, consecrated the altar on the hill of Saturn, and originated the burning of sacred [or irreproachable] incense in a pure fire, and, that men might have no anxiety at despising their national customs, he taught the inhabitants, as a means of mollify- ing the divine anger, that, in place of the men, whom, after binding them hand and foot, they were in the habit of throwing into the Tiber, they should make human images adorned after the same fashion and throw them into the stream.” — Dionys. Halicar. 1, 38, Vol. 1, pp. 95, 96. It will be noticed that incense was to be offered on the hill of Saturx, and that no distinct mention is made of its being offered to Saturn. Three hundred years before the Erythraean verses Saturn seems to have been practically ignored by the Romans. Half a century after their composi- tion Italy was supposed, ox authority of the Sibylline verses, to have been sacred to him. See on this subject. Appendix, Note A, § ii. Part C, especially foot-note 49. Augustus, and the conservatives in b. u 17, ignored Saturn, who must for some reason have been distasteful to patricians. Dio Cassius, 37, 37. The law of Sylla was, after a struggle, re- pealed, and that of Domitius, which gave the election to the people^ revived. One object of this was, doubtless, to effect Caesar’s election. 154 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. supposed portents, including repeated earthquakes and a total eclipse of the sun,^^ which seem, to have prompted, as usual. Sibylline predictions.^^ The civil war between Csesar and Pompey was about commencing, and the par- tisans of Pompey endeavored to conciliate the Jews by a series of favors, which shows that their influence, at least ill Asia Minor, was deemed irnportant.^^ § V. B. C. 44. Ccesars Death. Cicero disavows Heathenism. In this year Csesar was assassinated, and at his funeral pyre the Jews were conspicuous.^^ The attachment of their body, or of its major part, to Csesar is explicable on the ground that he was the popular leader, and that their chief affinities were with the popular party. He had, however, in early life, sought in Asia Minor a refuge from Sylla, and was likely enough, while there, if he liad not already done it, to unlearn some religious errors of his 31 Dio Cass. 41, 14. 3’^ “Certain oracles were sung as being by Sibylla, and certain inspired persons made frequent predictions.” — Dio Cass. 41, 14. 33 Josephus, in his Antiquities, 14, 10, 13-19, has collected some of these decrees made during the consulship of Lentulus and Marcellus, B. c. 42. The reader of Josephus must to some extent invert his order, if it is to be made chronological. The decrees of Dolabella, which Jose- phus gives previously to the above, were, in fact, five years later. Of the decrees in B. c. 49, or which Josephus seems to place in that year, one (§ 13) exempts Asiatic Jews from military service ; four (§§ 14, 16, 18, 19) exempt, or dismiss, from military service Jews, of different localities [even those], who were Roman citizens; one (§17) authorizes the Jews of Sardis [even ? if they were], Roman citizens, to settle their disputes at their own tribunals; and one (§ 15) directs the magistrates of Cos, in accordance with some decree of the [Roman ?] Senate, to transmit safely home certain individuals. Six additional decrees (§§ 20 - 25) in favor of the Jews may belong to this same year, but Josephus has not furnished means in each case of determining the date. 3^ “A multitude of foreign nations . . . gave vent to grief, each in its own fashion; but especially the Jews, who even frequented the funeral pyre during continuis consecutive (or whole) nights.” — Suetonius, Ccesar, c. 84. §V.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, B. C. 44. 155 country.^ Moreover, if he did not learn to regulate his own life by monotheistic rules, he may have acquired truer ideas of human rights and human civilization. These were likely to be strengthened rather than im- peded by his political position. The Gallic population at Kome had been, during many years before Caesar’s time, a steady ally of the popuhir party. His campaigns in Gaul, even if directed against their aristocracies, may have wounded the pride of Gauls in Italy and alienated many of them from himself, and if so, he may have deemed this an additional motive for keeping, or increasing, by political favors,^® any good-will which the Jews owed him either as the popular leader, or as the opponent of Pornpey, who had profaned their tern] Je. It may be a question whether Co3sar openly counte- nanced or not the proposed application to himself of a Sibylline passage, which referred to the Deity. If he did, his action was likely to shock reverential — by which must not be understood the most zealous — Jews even more than the passage disquieted his political opponents. After Csesar’s assassination, Antony, then consul, was left temporarily as leader for the popular, or, to speak more exactly, the anti-patrician, party. He first opposed and afterwards bought over Dolabella. The two made a Cicero may have written from purely political motives, yet lie pro- fesses that his own eyes were partly opened, or his doubts confirmed, by comparing notes with a king from Asia Minor. His words are : “I think that the law concerning augurs, although it was originally established because of a belief in divination, yet has afterwards been preserved and retained for political reasons, reipubliccc causa. . . . Let us examine auguries of foreign nations which are not so much artificiosa a matter of study [in the sense of artifice ?] as of su[)erstition. . . . Deiotarus used to inquire our rules of augury from me, I theirs from him. Immor- tal gods, what a difference ! How antagonistic, even, some of them were ! ” — Cicero, Be Divinat. 2, (35 , 36), 75, 7C. Whether Cicero here uses artificiosa in a bad sense may be a question. Compare Be Blvinat. 1 , (18), ; 2 , (11), 20, on its meaning. Josephus, in his Antiquities (14, 10, 2-S), has made a collection of seven decrees by C;esar in favor of the Jews. See Appendix, Note A, § in. foot-note 99. 156 JUDAISM AT KOME. [CH. VII, bid for Jewish favor.^^ Antagonism to Caesar’s murder- ers may have predisposed many Jews towards them, but Antony’s daughter (sister-in-law of Tiberius) at a later date sympathized obviously with monotheism even if she were not a professed monotheist, and it is possible that Antony himself may have had more than a merely polit- ical appreciation of the Jews, The patrician party equally needed Jewish support, but the proceedings of Cassius in the East aimed at extorting rather than conciliating it.^^ The suggestion, also by Cicero, published in this, or early in the following, year, that Sibylla’s teachings should be subordinated to sena- torial control,^^ was not calculated to win Jewish good-will. § VI. B. (7.43-31. Virgil and Horace. The Oracle at Delphi. In B. c. 43, the year after Caesar’s death, a triumvirate was formed, professedly in the interests of the popular party, by Antony, Lepidus, and Augustus Caesar. It fa- vored the Jews, as we learn from Antony’s action in their behalf, subsequently to the defeat of Brutus and Cassius."^^ ^ Josephus narrates in his Antiquities (14, 10, 9, 10) the joint action of Antony and Dolahella, who introduced to the Senate, or to such part of it as remained at Rome, the ambassadors of Hyrcanus, the Jewish high- priest, with whom an agreement was made, professedly in confirmation of something which Ciesar had intended. We have from the same author, in §§ 11, 12, Dolabella’s action in Asia, exempting the Jews from military service. The joint action of the Senate and of Antony and Dolahella, as CONSULS, is quoted by Josephus in detail, as if he were transcribing a public document. The date of this action is, according to his citation, February 9. The name of the month, hovrever, must be a mistake, since Dolahella did not become consul until after the death of Caesar in March, nor did Antony in the outset acknowledge him as consul. Josephus enumerates, in his Antiquities (14, 11, 2), the exaction of seven hundred talents, or about seven million dollars, from Judaea, as also the enslavement of four towns or cities. Even if the extortion be exaggerated, this was not a method of conciliation. See Appendix, Note A, foot-note 99. The action and decrees of Antony are recorded by Josephus in his §VI.] CimONOLOGICAL NAREATIVE, B. C. 43-31. 157 Virgil’s Fourth Eclogue belongs in the earlier portion of this period, and is, of itself, evidence that Jewisli writings, current under the name of Sibylla, had much hold on the public mind.'^^ Some other marked allusions by liiiii and Horace to Sibylline teachings may fall within or near tlie same epoch.^^ Oicsar s death gave occasion to such effusions^^ of a more temporary character. Some of tliese may have occasioned transient excitement, but tliey can have exercised no such permanent iiiHuence as the Ery- thraean verses, or as those moral and religious teachings, whether in tlie Old Testament or outside of it, wliich stimulated personal rectitude and appealed to the moral sense and higher wants of man. There is a feature of the times which calls here for attention. Cicero in his work on Divination, published perhaps in B. c. 44, but not later certainly than B. c. 45, puts into the mouth of his brother Quintus an explanation of why the Pythian oracle was unable, or less able than formerly, to tell the truth.^® We shall in the course of Antiquities (14, 12, 2 - 5 ). He reversed wliat Cassius had done, and set free tliose whom he had enslaved. Tlie Triumvirs “managed matters according to their own will and desire, so that [to patricians?] the sole rule of Caisar ajipeared [in comparison] a golden one.” — Dio Cassius, 47, 15 . See Appendix, Note A, foot-notes 51, 74. See Appendix, Note A, foot-notes 32, 58, 60, 65, 71, 80, 83, 84. See Sibyl. Orac. 11, 2 ( 51 - 201 . The reader may wish in this connection to examine the Appendix, Note A, § VIII. Quintus Cicero attributed foreknowledge to natural endowment (see Aj^pendix, Note A, foot-note 96), and also, as apparent in the present extract, to some force of nature, but not to the inspiration of a super- human being. “Could that Oracle at Delphi have been so celebrated and renowned, so loaded with gifts of all peoples and kings, unless every age had experienced the truth of its oracles ? Since a long time it has CEASED TO DO SO. As DOW it lias Icss renown because the truth of its oracles is less pi'ominent, so formerly it had not been so honored save for its eminent truthfulness. Perhaps that power from the earth, which used to excite the mind of Pythia by a divine influence, may have vanished by age as we see some rivers to have dried up, or else to be twisted, or de- flected, into a dilTerent channel. But be that as you will, for the question 158 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. this work find a discussion as to why it had died out.^^ The decadence of the Oracle kept such approximate pace with the spread of Judaism as to justify a belief that Jewish teachings, aided eventually by those of Christians, had no slight share in driving it out of repute. A fair question may be whether Cicero exaggerated his brother’s belief, or any then existing Stoic belief, in omens. He himself, in his Legibus, written during patrician rule, had strongly advocated that religious matters should be exclusively controlled by the Senate.^^ His work, De Divinatione, though finished, or retouched, after Caesar’s death, must have been mostly written during that indi- vidual’s supremacy. In this he endeavors to show that he had less sympathy with, and belief in, the state religion than even the (half-Judaized) Stoics. The first book of Satires by Horace was, according to all critics of his writings, published during the period covered by the present section. It contains two passages, one of which strongly illustrates the deep hold taken by Judaism on the Eomans, and the other implies proselyting activity on the part of eJews. Horace represents himself in one of these as trying to shake off a bore, who had fastened on him in the street. In his predicament he stops a friend whom he meets, and — after a hint that he wished relief from his prior companion — remarks, '' You had private business with me.” The friend responds. Yes, ‘‘ but this is the THIRTIETH sabbath,” or, in other words, the last day of the passover, the great day of the feast ; and excuses himself on the ground that he in common with THE MANY, could not use such a day for business.^^ is a large one, yet let this be considered as established, — which is unde- niable, unless we would upset all history, — that that oracle was during many ages veracious.” — Cicero, De Divinat 1, (19), 37, 38. See a quotation from Lamprias in Ch. X. § iv. 3. See Ch. I. note 6. ‘‘Fuscus Aristius meets me, a special friend, who well knew the fellow. We stop. ‘Where do you come from’ and ‘Where are y^ou going.’ He asks and gives answer. I began to take hold of and pull his unaccommodating arms, intimating by a side-look that he should extricate me. He, smiling with ill-timed jocosity, dissembled [his com- §VII.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, B. C. 30-18. 159 In the other passage Horace writes: 'Hf you do not give in, a numerous band of poets shall come to my aid, — for there are many more of us, — and, like the Jews, we will COMPEL you to give in to our crowd.” The passage is in striking contrast to the statement of Gib- bon, who, even yet, is regarded as the standard modern historian of liome.^^ § VII. B. G, 30 - 18. Patrician Reaction. Vinjil hur- Icsqnes Part of the Erythrcean Verses. During this period there is no direct evidence of special consequence in determining the relations of Judaism, or monotheism, towards heathenism, thougli one, at least, of the predictions concerning Eome’s destruction belongs, IN ITS PRESENT SHAPE, to the year b. c. 30.^2 There is, however, indirect evidence that Augustus, influenced by prehension of me]. I began to lose })atience. ‘ Certainly you said you wished to speak privately with me on 1 do not know exactly what.’ ‘I remember well,’ [he says,] ‘but I will speak with you at a more suitable time. To-day is the thirtieth sabbath. Would you diametrically op])ose the circumcised Jews?’ ‘1 have no religious scruples,’ was my answer. ‘But for me, I am somewhat weaker ; one of the many. You will par- don me. I will speak with you some other time.’ ” — Horace, Satires, Book 1, 9, Gl - 72. Horace, Satires, Book 1, 4, 140-143. “The Jewish religion was admirably fitted for defence, but it was never designed for conquest ; and it seems probable that the number of proselytes was never much superior to that of apostates The obligation of preaching to the Gentiles the faith of IMoses had never been inculcated as a precept of the law, nor were the Jews inclined to impose it on themselves as a voluntary duty ; . . . and whenever the God of Israel ac(iuired any new votaries, he was much more indebted to the in- constant humor of polytheism than to the active zeal of his own mission- aries.” — Gibbon, c. 15, Yol. 2, pp. 61, 62, Philada. edit. 1816. One better acquainted than Gibbon with Jewish habits of that date told the Scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 23, iq, “You traverse sea and land to make a proselyte.” Of course the most zealous proselyters were usually not the moral exemplars of Judaism. See Ch. VI. § ii. No. 1. 160 JUDAISM AT KOME. [CH. VII. the patrician element then in power, was preparing to throw off friendship, not only towards the popular party, but towards monotheism, its ally. Virgil, who was now elaborating his ^neid under the patronage of Augustus, would hardly have converted “ the chaste ^neas ” of Jewish into a libertine, the shameless imitator of Ulysses, had he not deemed that such an antithesis to Jewish views of morality would be acceptable to his patron. The suppression of the Egyptian religion in B. c. 21 (see Appendix, Note II, foot-note 1) was a first step by the patricians towards reasserting their control of religious matters. § VIII. B. C. 18 -A. D. 2. Attack on Monotheism and Popular Bights. In this period Augustus became a tool of reactionaries,^^ who made him their mouth-piece in driving from the Sen- ate and {Indirect Testimony, p. 82) condemning to death their opponents. An effort was made to undo what had been accomplished for equal rights in the time of Julius CcCsar, and therewith to check the progress of monothe- ism. The adherents of monotheism and popular rights were, in B. c. 18 or 17, eliminated by fraud and violence from the Senate. The wealthier aristocracy took sole pos- session, admitting a few only of their partisans, and, as' soon as Augustus became high-priest, required every one to burn frankincense before proceeding to business, — a rule which excluded monotheists and such of their allies See in Appendix, 'Note A, § vi. the quotation from line 42 of Hor- ace’s Secular Poem or Age Song, and compare with it the remarks on yEneas in the same Note, § ii. Part D. The extent to which Livia, wife of Augustus, made herself, during her son’s reign, the active instrument of the aristocracy, renders probable that they knew how, in the present instance, to avail themselves of her influence. The retirement of Tiberius, in B. c. 6, to Khodes, was un- questionably caused by reactionaries at Rome. When Augustus attained a better comprehension of these latter, Tiberius, in A. D. 2, returned, and became (see Appendix, Note G, foot-note 8) a trusted adviser of his step- father, who, much to the disgust of patrician reactionaries, left him as his successor. § VIII.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, B. C. 18-A. D. 2. 161 in the popular party as had too much self-respect to give themselves the ^ippearance of believing what they did not. The Senate was turned into a secret conclave,^ so as to render its members irresponsible to the community. This expurgation, so called, of the Senate, was prear- ranged in one of those complicated ways^^ which persons are apt to adopt when wishing to conceal their real pur- pose. Finesse, however, failed, and force had to be em- ployed.^^ That there was no intention of leaving liberty of action to those nominally intrusted wdth it, is obvious 1‘rom tlie reproaches of Augustus to Labeo.^® The pro- fessed fear lest the former should be assassinated was probably a political ruse to impose upon him, or create sympathy in his favor.^^ The restriction of the sena- See Ch. V. note 59. Augustus, according tc Dio Cassius, 54, l?, selected thirty men, after having taken an oath to choose the best, or the most prominent, for the Greek word may mean either. These thirty were each to write down the names of five others, and, from each five, one was selected by lot as a senator. These thirty senators were, each of them, again to select five. The selections, however, did not suit Augustus, and, after some progress had been made, he chose the remainder himself. The expurgation “was conducted by himself and Agrippa. On this occasion he is believed to have taken his seat as he presided, with a coat of mail under his tunic, and a sword by his side, and with ten of the stoutest men of senatorial rank, who were his friends, standing round his chair. Cordus Cremutius relates that no senator was suffered to ap- proach him, except singly, and after having his bosom searched.” — Sue- ton. August. 35, Bohn’s trans. 68 “'\Yhen Antistius Labeo inscribed him (Lepidus) among the sena- tors . . . (Augustus) at first charged him with perjur}^ and threatened him with punishment. But on his saying, * What dreadful thing have 1 done by retaining in the Senate one whose continuance in the higli-priest- hood you overlook ? ’ (Augustus) gave no further vent to his anger.” — Dio Cass. 54, w. 69 << 'vVhen conversation took place in the Senate to the effect that there was need of their acting in rotation as guards for Augustus, (Antistius Labeo) not venturing to contradict, nor enduring to yield assent, [re- marked] that, ‘ I snore, and cannot [therefore] sleep in front of him.’ ” — Dio Cass. 54, 15 . “ Alter these things [incident to the reconstruction of the Senate] had K 162 JUDAISM AT DOME. [CH. VII. torial dignity to the most wealthy®^ was unlikely to secure either honesty, impartiality, or civil capacity in its members. The reactionary patricians gained their point, but at the cost of public indignation, which for a time counteracted some of its advantages. Men, of whom a need was felt, refused seats in the reconstituted Sen- ate,^i and Labeo, the ablest jurist of his day, refused to taken place, many immediately and many subsequently were, truly or falsely, charged with platting against him (Augustus) and Agrippa. . . . In the present instance Augustus punished some.” — Dio Cass. 54, 15. 60 “ Augustus first fixed it” (the property requisite for a senator) “at 400,000 sesterces, afterwards increased it to double this sum, and at last even to 1,200,000 sesterces.” — Smith, of Antiq. p. 1018, col. 2. Under this arrangement those who were the most unscrupulous in plun- dering the provinces would be best provided with the requirements for a .senator. Dio Cassius tells us (54, 17) that to some persons of “worthy life,” who had not acquired the property requisite for a senator, Augus- tus made up the deficiency. It would, however, be indubitably a mis- take to suppose that he included among these peo])le of “worthy life” any of his political opponents. It was more probably a pretext for strengthening himself in the Senate. Compare on p. 116 (in note 131) the action of Claudius about sixty years later. Augustus again undertook in b. c. 13 to reconstitute the Senate. According to Dio Cassius, “ there was no longer any one found who would willingly be a senator, but there were even sons and grandsons of senators,, who, some from real poverty [?], and others because humbled by the mis- fortunes of their ancestors [?], made little account of the senatorial dignity, and, even if enrolled, swore themselves out.” — Dio Cass. 54, 26. 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 yeai's 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. §VIII.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, B. C. 18 - A. D. 2. 163 be a consul.^^ 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 fdain 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 Judaea, 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 soothed^ or watched. If, on the other hand, Augustus were engaged “ Labeo, when the consulship was offei’ed him by Augustus, refused the honor.” — Digesta, Book 1, tit. 2, [§] 2, ^ 47, in the Corpus Juris CiviLis, Vol. 1, col. (of the Digest.) 8 ; (juoted also in Smith, Diet, of Biog. Vol. 1, p. 599, col. 2, where the ct should have been in brackets. ^ Agrippa is said by Josephus {Antiq. 16, 2, l) to have feasted the Jews and to have offered a hecatomb of saciifices. 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, tlie 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 Agi’ippa 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 EOME. [CH. VII. ill a purely political contest of a local character, Agrippa was the very man whom he needed at Home, 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,^ — 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 chronologically 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 Gyrene. 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. C^esar to Norbanus Flaccus. 4. Cains Norbanus Flaccus, I)roconsul, to the Magistrates of the Sardians, stating the purport of the foregoing letter of Caesar. 5. Julius Antonins, 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. c. 13, so that if we ])lace 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 tlie monotheistic or Sibylline writ- ings in its archives.^ Nothing could be accomplished, it seems, against the same class of writings, outside, witliout 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.^^ Friends of monotheism and popular rights doubtless counselled liim 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.^ Whether a plea made before Agidppa, 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 Agiippa would have had no wish to grant, and complaints which he would have been disin- clined to rectify. “He (Augustus) commanded that the Sibylline utterances which had become illegible by age should be coj'.ied by the priests with their ovvui 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. 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. 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 HOME. [CH. VU. the penalty of death for disobedience were afhxed at this or at a later date cannot certainly be determined.^^ 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 ml parum idoncis auctoribicSy retaining the Sibylline books alone, and of these only a sp:lection, 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 Eoman Senate, “that because many follies WE iiE CIRCULATED Under the established reputation, sub nomim celcbri (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 Avho 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, 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. §VIII.] 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, bears evidence, not merely of non-Jewisli, but of anti- Jewish, authorship, and corroborates other evidence of an anti-Jewish movement by the aristocracy. Neitlier tliey nor Augustus, whom they controlled, showed any desire to liave 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 on the omission from these lines . of any attention to Saturn. Considered in connection with part of the Erythroeaii 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."^ One feature of his Ode throws remarkable light on tlie powerful impression which Jewish anticipations of liome’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 ratkician 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 lier control. Another blow at monotlieism, dealt, as already men- tioned, so soon as Augustus acquired the chief-priestliood, was an order that every senator, before proceeding to senatorial business, should offer frankinceiised^ 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. 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 nientions (Augiistits, c. 35) that the offering was to be made to that god in whose temple they were, for the time being, assembled. 168 JUDAISM AT DOME. [CH. VII. Its only other snpposable 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.’’ 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 give it must have anticipated active support from public opinion. Compare Note A, foot-note 124. A monotheistic response which the Cohortatio ad Grecos 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 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 vocc. § VIII.] CimONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, B. C. 18- A. D. 2. 169 Christianity, since, if so, a Christian would not have quoted it approvingly.*^^ Tlie 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 liad gradually been done away, as the augury for [public] safety ; the priesthood of J upiter ; the Lupercalia ; the Secular and Conipitalician games.” How little all this availed towards making men prefer lieathenism to monotlieisrn 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 that of morality. It is, of course, jirobable 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.” “When some one, according to your own (i. e. heathen) accounts, asked from one of your own oracles, ‘ Wliat 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 cveii or namely^ this would imply that Chaldeans had adopted monotheism. 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, 30) to have been re-established in B. c. 11. Among the priesthoods of individual gods it was the highest. Dio Cass. 54, 16. 8 170 JUDAISM AT KOME. [CH. VII. This law, however, must have impeded, rather than aided, a healthy moral sentiment.’^^ Its provisions showed that its frafners 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, \vere intended as a reflection on liis 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 ?].” 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.^^ § 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- 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 Poppeea. 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. Dio Cass. 54, 1(5. “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, IG. 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. SCHOOLS OF LAW. 171 §IX.] ries, until Christianity became dominant.®^ These claim a slight interruption in our chronological narrative. (Japito, 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, thougli there are a few quotations from him at second hand.”^^ “The extracts from Labeo in the Digest occupy about twelve pages [as printed] in Hommel’s Falingenesia Fandeciarum. They are sixty in number. But the name of Labeo occurs in other passages of tlie Digest no fewer than five hundred and forty-one times.” 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.” This, in consideration of what lias already been said, can hardly mean more than that, during the influence of a heatlien aristocracy and under their pet emperors, the school of ancient usage bore sway. When “After him (Tiibero) Anteius Capito . . . and Aiitistins Labeo were regarded as the higliest aiitliorities. . . . Those two first established what miglit be called different schools ; for Anteins Ca])ito adhered persistently to tradition ; Labeo, by mental constitution, mgcnii qualitate, and by the confidence which his learning inspired, — for he had studied hu'gely outside of his profession, — commenced many innovations.” — Pompo- nius, quoted in Digest 1, 2, 2, 47. “There is no jn'oof that there was ever a distinct middle school.” — Smith, Diet, of Biog. Yol. 1, p. 601, col. 2. To the school of Capito belonged lUasurius Sabinus, Cains Cassius Longinus, Caelius Sabinus, Priscus Javolenus, Aburnus Yalens, Tuscianus, and Julianus. To that of Labeo belonged Kerva (the father), Proculus, Nerva (the son), another Longinus, Pegasus, Celsus (the father), Celsus (the son), and Priscus Neratius. Tlie friendship of the elder Nerva for Tiberius implies that he adhered to, not, as some suppose (Smith, Diet, of Biog. Yol. 1, p. 601, col. 2), that he .swerved from the school of Labeo. For the above list, see Digest 1, 2, 2, 47. Smith, Diet, of Biog. Yol. 1, p. 600, col. 1. Same work, Yol. 2, p. 693, col. 1. Smith, Diet, of Biog. Yol. 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,®^ 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.®^ The remark of Horace, more, crazy than Labeo'' shows how he was viewed by patri- cian conservatives. Neither Hadrian nor his successor, Antoninus Pius, were devotees of the privileged classes.^^ Possibly the distinc- Ennius, a Roman kniglit, 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 dehoneMavisset had brought re- proach upon an eminent public [that is, upon the aristocracy] and on the honas 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. 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. 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 . Atrocities under Trajan caused under Hadrian a much needed transfer of death-power from masters (see Ch. X. note 131) to the courts. 87 Hadrian (cp. p. 325) decided that 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.” — SaxidiBis, Introduct. to Institutes of Justiniany j). 18. Cp. Gains, 1 , 7, Boeeking’s edit. p. 3. §IX.] SCHOOLS OF LAW. 173 tion of schools became less imominent under the latter. If so, the aristocracy must liave found it more difficult to regain control of legal decisions tlian of political power. Pomponius, liowever, lived near the middle of the second century, and his list, already given, would naturally ter- minate with jurists of tlie preceding generation. Legal decisions were certainly in a state of change until after Cliristianity had gained the ascendency and it is likely that lieathen views found legal defenders so long as hea- thenism had power. In effecting legal reform the chief aid afforded by monotheism must have been tlirougli 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 lioman law.^^ There were perhaps two reasons for this. Firstly : 88 << jf compare tlie Institutes of Justinian with tliose of Gains, we find changes in the law of marriage, in tliat of succession, ami in many other branches of law, in whicli it is not difficult to recognize tlie spirit of humanity and reverence for natural ties which Christianity had in- spired.” — Bandars, Tntroduct. to Institutes of Justinian^ p. 21. 89 “ Uy far the most important addition to the system of Roman law which the jurists introduced from [Judaism mingled with Greek jihilos- 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 naturae^ therefore, was meant primarily the determining force of the universe, a force inherent in the universe by its constitution (lex est naturae vis). But man has reason, and as reason cannot be two- fold, the ratio of the universe must be the same as the 7'atio of man, and tlie lex naturae 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 jus civile threat- 174 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. among 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, esTxVBLISHED law.^^ They did not per- ceive that in their mouths the phrase lacked meaning.®^ eiied to do a moral wrong, and produce a result that was not equitable, then the Ux 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 pretorian 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 Roman 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 natiirce ; 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 naturae w'ere each the complement of the other, and were often looked on by the jurists as making one whole, to which the taxm jus gentium 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 . ^‘Law is the Supreme Reason dwelling in nature which orders what is proper to be done and prohibits the contrary.” — Cicero, Legihus, 1, 6 . A Stoic, while believing in a moral intelligence which animated and ruled the universe, could by the Lex Naturae, 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 universe inanimate, its decisions on legal or moral questions must have been im- aginary. Much of what Avas good in civil law, though expressed in Latin, originated and Avas first promulgated in monotheistic Greek -speaking lands. §x.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 2-14. 1 ^ r* I/O § X. A. D. 2- 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 infiuence. 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 Rhodes. 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, wlio Imd felt the need of a thoughtful, unselfish adviser, recalled liim 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,^ 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 wliicli 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.” In 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 tlie former year Cains went to Asia. In February of the latter year he died. Strabo, Geographica, 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 Eites,” that is, of Judaism. The probability is, that, even when Strabo wrote, tlie 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.^^ 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.^^ 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 hardly be termed either a result or a support of heathen belief. If we now turn to Livy, whose history belongs approx- imately to this date,^® we shall find ground to query whether some phraseology which he uses, or quotes, did not result from Jewish influences. Before citing it, an ^ Augustus ‘‘ increased not only the number and dignity of the priests, hut 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. “ 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, 22. 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 Dmsus. §x.] CHKONOLOGICAL 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.^"^ In accordance with this custom, Livy has given us the speech of a patrician lady named Virginia. She had married a plebeian, and tlie 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 j)lebeian 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,” uni nu])ium. As the earliest Christian assemblies ‘‘There will he 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 tliose 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 TARTY. Sometimes, also, but rarely, using the libert}' granted in all times to historians, I have ven- tured to ADD A SMALL NUMBER OF PHRASES, wMch appeared to me to coincide perfectly wdth the sense of the oi*ator and proper to enforce his opinion ; this has appeared especially in the two discourses pronounced before Congress, for and against indejiendence, by Richard Henry Lee and John Dickinson.” — Botta, War of Indcx>cndeiice, 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 ]nits 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, ])roceeded, after her exclusion, to set apart a portion of her own ])remises, on which she built an altar to “Plebeian Chastity.” Then, calling together plebeian matrons, she 8* L 178 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VII. 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 Ptoraan literature to an earlier date than that of Jewish influence. 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 mati’ons 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 Por 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, 9. In the Lexicon of Facciolati and Forcellini, under the word 'pro- nuhuSf 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.14i—\Q. Tiberius Emperor. Patrician Steps towards Rebellion. Ill A. D. 14 Augustus died, after selecting Tiberius as his successor. Tlie selection was prompted by his appre- ciation of the latter, and amounted to a confession of having been misled by his previous surroundere. Tiberius entered on his duties while an adverse i'action 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 iiad effected through his step-father. His position was additionally embarrassed by tlie fact tliat his mother sympathized with the aristocratic faction, and, through defects in her “Test. Yarr. apud Serv. ad ^En. 4 , KKi,’’ I liave not means to determine tlie date, but see no reason for regarding it as earlier than Livy. The office of Flai-^ien 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 Aldus Gellius, 10 , 1 .% — 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. How immediately the deification of Augustus was used for the pur- pose of tying his successor’s 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 oirt more violently, and with considerable loss of life, in A. D. 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. JUDAISM AT ROME. 180 [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 wdth those in the next chapter. That this connection may not be interrupted, a j)iece 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 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.^^^ The 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, ], the young Jewish princes, sons of Herod, abode while in Rome. ‘‘ Tiberius opposed (the motion of Gallus) as if desirous to conceal things divine and human.” — TsLCitus, 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 anti-heathen teaching. If 181 §xl] CHBONOLOGICAL NAKKATIVE, a. D. 14-18. Senate entrusted to a committee of two, Anteius Capito and Lucius Arruntius, tlie engineering question of a rem- edy for overflows. Both of these were conservatives, and the remedy whicli 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 Borne and the eftbrt to crush its Gentile converts. Germanicus at the date of his uncle’s accession com- manded the Bornan armies in Germany, and was tlien already concerned, as it would seem, in a conspiracy against him. He threatened, and almost undoubtedly authorized, a butchery of soldiers whose fidelity to liis uncle forbade acquiescence in the plot of himself and of his co-conspirators.^®^ His effort to move the soldiers by 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. The brother of Tibei'ius, 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. Tacitus says of the legions, “ Earnest were their hopes that Ger- manicus would never brook the rule of another.” — Tac. A 71 . 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 Csecina privately read to the standard-bearers, the inferior officers, and such of the private soldiers as were least disalFected. . . . 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 EOME. [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.'’ He had probably conspired with the Senate, whose deputies met him at Bonn.^®^ 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.^^® The story that the legions revolted means that they refused obedience to himself and to such officers as were in the conspiracy.^^^ Germanicus himself must for a time have been de- tained a prisoner by the soldiery.^^^ 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. 106 Dio Cass. 57, 5. 107 Tacitus, A7i. 1, 39 . 106 Tacitus, Aoi. 1, 31 - 35 . 100 Silius, who at the accession of Tiberius commanded on the Upper Rhine 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, Eebellimi Record, Diary, p. 43. 11'^ 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.^^^ In fact, at a yet later date his inhumanity must have been anything but agreeable to an uncle who was habitually just and foibear- 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 Home the reluctant Germanicus.^^*^ So soon as this was accomplislied, Germany quieted down and remained peaceful towards Home during the wliole reign 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. “ He wasted the country by fire 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, A/i. 1, .^)1, Bohn’s trans. “ He fell upon the Cattians with such surprise, that all the WEAK THROUGH SEX OR AGE WERE INSTANTLY TAKEN OR SLAUGHTERED ; 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, 5n, Bohn’s trans. 112 Germanicus . . . exhorted his men ‘ to prosecute the slaughter ; they wanted no captives,’ he said ; ‘the extermination of the peo])le 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 supcrvacuis, worse than objectless, and found fault with his most glorious victories as detri- mental to the Republic.” 11^ Tacitus, An. 2, 20. 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.” 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 and was, equally as any other existing arrange- ment, part of the agglomeration tliat 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,^^® whose manliness in a trying position justified his selection. He reached Syria Tacitus, An. 2, 43. , 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. Piso had in b. c. 7 been consul conjoin tl 3 ^ with Tiberius. The lat- ter went into exile witliin 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, A71. 2 , 35) 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.J CIIKONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 14-18. 185 early in A. D. 18, and nearly at the same time Germanicus, who Iiad left Eome earlier,- landed in Asia Minor. Piso at once commenced drilling the legioiis,^^^ and changed some officers, substituting, doubtless, for men in the patri- cian interest, others on whom he could rely.^^® German- icus almost immediately set out for a ffireign 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 tlie king repre- sented. lie then ordered Piso to lead part of tlie Syrian legions into Armenia. Piso, who knew that his duties lay in the Ponian province of Syria, not in the foreign country of Armenia, forbore — as did Tiberius throughout his reign — any interference witli the internal affairs of a foreign nation. Subsecpieiitly, at a banquet, Germanicus and his wife accepted golden crowns from the king of the Nabatlueans, a people in Northern Arabia. Yet later, at the request of Artabanus, king of tlie Parthians, and witli a view, no doubt, to liis alliance, he, against the will of ITso, sent as a j)risoner from Syria into Cilicia, Vonones, an expatriated l^xrthian king, a friend of Tiberius, living under Pomaii protection. Tlie unfortunate man, a person apparently of culture, was promptly afterwards mur- dered.^^^ Tacitus says {An. 2 , 55) that Piso allowed the soldiery to live idly IN CAMP, ill-hehavcd 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. Silanus, the previous govenior of Syria, was connected with Ger- manicus by the intermarriage of their childi’en, and had possibly been arianging 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 disciidine. According to Suetonius (TibcriicSy 49) the wealth of Vonones caused Ids murder. It would, of course, prove very convenient in making ar- rangements for a rebellion. 186 JUDAISM AT EOMK [CH. VIII. CHAPTEE VIII. CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. HT-70. § 1. jD. 19, 20. Conversions to Judaism hecome Illegal, The preparations for rebellion against Tiberius, men- tioned ill 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 provinces^ the appointees of his uncle, and was to establisli in those provinces a kingdom for himself. The aristocracy at Eome 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 lieadway, notwithstanding his efforts to gain favor with the inhab- itants.*^ In Syria he drove out his uncle’s deputy, but ^ See division of provinces mentioned in Ch. YII. note 115. ^ Germanicus, according to Tacitus (An. 2 , 59 ), divested himself of his Roman dress and adopted that of the Greeks. He also, as mentioned hy 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. 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.^ Piso at once returned with such forces as he could collect."^ The Parthian king, though writing abusively to Tiberius,^ must have been conquered and compelled to give hostages.^ At Eorne 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,*^ 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 streets’^^ as Sibylline : — Their action may have taken place after failure by him to enlist Egyptian aid. ^ German icus returning from Egypt found his commands to legions or cities annulled or reversed. Hence serious insults [were heaped by liim] 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. ^ 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 wdierewith he had previously exercised his com- mand.” — Tacitus, All. 2, 78. His efforts to strengthen his forces are mentioned in the same chapter. ^ Suetonius, Tib. 66. ® A king was subsequently (Dio Cass. 58, 20) selected by the Parthians from among these hostages. The Parthian hostages mentioned by Sue- tonius {Calig. 19) must have been these sent in the time of Tiberius. No subsequent occurrence had called for them. 7 Dio Cass. 57, is. 7* Ibid. 188 [CH. VIII. JUDAISM AT ROME. “ When thrice three hundred years shall have passed Internal sedition, the Sybaritic madness, shall destroy the Eomans.” 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,^ 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,^ and we can safely infer that it would have ® “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 (Jew’s) 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 sectantes, he removed from THE CITY, under pain of perpetual servitude if they did not obe}^” — Suetonius, Tih. c. 36. The vestments burned must have been Egyp- tian. The Jewish priesthood, with its paraphernalia, w’as confined to Jerusalem. The synagogue service seems to have been devoid of show. ® The reader, wdiile 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 Komans] 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- § 1 .] 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.^^ 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 timies : “At the expiration of a year the custom was not only eas}" hut 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 jmung 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. “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, .% 'WhistoiTs trans. altered. Compare Ch. II. § ii. 2. 190 JUDAISM AT EOME. [CH. VIII. narrated by Josephus alone/^ 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 ancl the repression of robbers there are intended probably to divert the reader’s attention from the true object of the conscription. Coincident with anti -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, but by considerations which, raise the following questions. Had Jewish influence nur- tured among Eomans 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 communitv was attributable to Jewish %/ teaching ? Josephus gives the details in his Antiquities, 18 , 3, 4. The husband of Paulina, equally as of Fulvia, is by Josephus called Saturninus. “After which things [namely, the anti- Jewish provisions] Caesar 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 § 1 .]- CHRONOLOGICAL NARK ATI VE, 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.^^ 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,^^ the ashes of her husband in a pompous funeral procession to Pome. 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, ^91. 2, SG. 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. Titidius Labeo was summoned to answer (Tacitus, An. 2, 8r.) 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 ma}% in this, have been persecuted for services rendered by his father to the cause of human right. 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. A?i. 5, 3), and from her connection with the rebellion of A. D. 31, as also from remarks found in Tacitus, An. 4, 39, 52, 53. 192 JUDAISM AT DOME. [CII. viir. date Piso arrived, and was escorted by friends to his house. On the day after his arrival prosecution (under the Eoman system of private prosecutors^^) 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 witlidraw Trio and substitute other accusers. Before a ree^ular tri- bunal the Senate would have been defeated, but by some stretch of power it had tlie case brought before itself. Tims Piso’s enemies were to be his judges. By what procedure the trial was removed from an ordinary court into the Senate 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 tliem where they had previously stood. The Senate condemned Piso to death.'" ^ He committed See Appendix, Note C. 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.” — Smytli, 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 , lO) 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 , lo), referred the matter to the Senate. Suetonius, Calig. 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.^® Tiberius, whose questions betoken painful interest in the fate of his friend,^^ 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.^^ Tacitus would have us believe that Tiberius during the trial looked grave or indifferent, and, therefore, Piso committed suicide.^^ 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.^^ This sequence could not, according to the allegation of Piso’s accusers, be burned. The lire which consumed the body of Germaiiicus did not consume his heart ; therefore lie 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. Tacitus, An. 3, 16 . “Coesar, putting on an expression of grief, [said to Piso’s freedman who (Tac. A)i. 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. Tacitus, An. 3 17 , 18 . “Piso, having suffered from renewed accusation, [had it been inter- mitted or decided once in his hivor ?] 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 . “ In retaliation for the death of Germaiiicus many W’ere 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 DOME. [CH. VIII. of the trial is ignored, or concealed, by Tacitus,^^ who, though acquainted with the views of the popular party concerning Germanicus,^^ has given us merely patrician statements, or his own lictions and discolorations.^^ One of his boldest efforts at untruth is the statement under A. D. 23, that, during the reign of Tiberius prior to that date, the Kepublic had been com'positam, 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 . Tacitus, after mentioning rewards to the prosecutors, alleges : ‘‘ This was the end of [proceedings in] revenge for the death of Germanicus.” — An. 3 , 19 . 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 . 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 tire 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 senioribus 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.^^ §11. A, D, 21-37. During that portion of the reign of Tiberius which is after A. D. 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 tlieir belief; and if Jews were the me- chanics of that day, tliat the industrial wants of the com- munity, no less than the politics of the popular paity, would j)owerfully 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.^’^ Absence of disturbance in Judea during the whole reign of Tiberius (Tac. I/tsL 6, 9) must have been due to confidence in himself, not to confidence in the Senate. Tacitus, ^71. 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 tlie instances in which a foreign re- ligion had been rejected, dc 'pc.i'cgrhm rclUjione rcjccta. Under three lieads 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 Praeneste, for they decided that the Republic ought to be administered according to its own, not according to foreign, divination.” 2. Cornelius Ilispallus, “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 Avho by a tretended worship of Sabazian Jove endeavored to corrupt Roman customs.” 3. A temple of Isis and Sera pis 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 linding 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 w’as pretor (see Scipio, No. 28, in Smith, Diet, 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 tlie 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.^^ A Ipaternity 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.^^ 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 thaji 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 conservatiTO reaction of A. D. 19 stimulated erection of temples, it contributed towards exposing the true character of heath- ♦ enism. Tlie 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. “ 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, An. 3, 03. 197 §11.] CIIPtONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 21-37. while protected by the statue of the '' Divine Augustus,” had abused their masters, to tlie arnusenient perhaps of the popular party. Deference to tlie 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. Tlie Senate needed to vote a heavy pecuniary gratuity to one of the vestal virgins, and a seat among them at tlie theatre to the emperor’s mother,^^ as a means of diminishing repugnance towards the oifice. Another event of the same year calls for a prefatory remark. Twelve months before this, Servius IMaluginensis, priest of Jupiter, had claimed the province of Asia,^^ 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 perhajis against strife between greedy aspirants. An examination of law showed that the priest of Jupiter must not leave liome for more than a night or two at a time, and Asia was awarded to the next oldest consular.^^ 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 might find an incumbent.^^ The son of Maluginensis was Tacitus, Jn. 3, 36. Tacitus, J 71 . 4, 16. Tacitus, yin. 3, 58. Augustus or the aristocracy revived, in b. c. 11, during the reactionary efforts of that date, tlie priesthood of Jupiter, which had been out of existence for seventy-six years. Since that date Servius Maluginensis had been the only iiicunibent. ^ 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. Tacitus saves senatoiial orthodoxy by attributing to Tiberius the proposal for modifying ancient usage. 198 JUDAIS^I AT KOME. [CH. VIII. temporarily substituted suffectus in his father’s place.^^ 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 J upiter disappears from history. In A. D. 24 augury, the only relic of what might be called public religious service at Eome, came to an end.^® 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.^" 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, § ill. In A. D. 32 a production in the name of Sibylla was added to the public collection.^^ 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. ^ Tacitus, An. 4 , 16. Compare the use of suffectus in the consular lists. 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.” 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. ^ Tacitus, An. 6 , 12. Compare Appendix, Note A, foot-note 120. I CHRONCLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 199 § III.] § III. 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 soldiery 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 endearment as towards a loved cliild. His illness caused widespread sympathy,^^ unless among the aristocracy, and after his “It was to the pleasantry of tlie 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, Bohn’s trans. altered. Sueton. Calig. 13. Epithets of this nature scarcely admit transla- tion. Compare on p. 224, })opiilar love for him after his death. “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, Bohn’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.^^ He must have concluded that to such a set even sham fights were harmful, for he sold off the remaining gladi- ators.^^ He seems, however, to have catered liberally ibr public amusement by shows of wild beasts and by in- stituting theatricals in different parts of the city,^^ in iiopes perhaps of reclaiming the multitude from more brutal tastes. Tlie 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. Ccdig. c. 14, Bohn’s trans. Josephus, amidst some contradictory statements, says of Caligula, that “he was also more skilful in persuading others to very great things than anyone else, and this from a natural affability of temper which had been improved by much exercise and painstaking.” — Jo.sephus, Antiq. 19, 2, 5 , Winston’s ti'ans. And mentions {Ibid.) that he “was a slave to the commendations of the populace ” ; with which remark, however, com- pare the last paragrapli of note 7 2. See Sueton. Calig. 30, cited in Ch. Y. note 7. Dio Cass. 59 , 14 . Compare Sueton. Calig. 39 (or in Bohn’s trans. 38). Dio Cass. 59, 13 ; compare 59, 7 . “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, Jun. 7, 17, ll) to make these a success. &III.] CHEONOLOGICAL NAEEATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 201 his soldiers,^® cashiering at the same time not a few cen- turions who had either been peculating/^ 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,^® meant evidently that he wished them to liave 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.^^ If his selection of a seat for his infant daugh- ter be a true indication of his aims in her behalf, tlien affectionateness was mingled with true aspirations. Another prominent feature in Caligula was a keen appreciation of the ludicrous, and a tendency to give humorous ratlier than correct reasons for his conduct. Thus for a practical and sufficient reason he enclosed a “Sending for the most beautiful and expensive of the princely valu- ables, he sold them at auction. . . . Yet he did not layup anything but expended it on — aside from other things — . . . the armies.” — Dio Cass. 59, 21, 22. The context specifies articles received from his hither 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. “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. Sueton. Calig. c. 46. “He loved with a most passionate and constant affection [his wife] Ca3Sonia, 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 JMinerva, rather than in that of any other goddess, indicates per- haps his wishes in her behalf. Compare Suetonius, Calig. 25, with Dio Cassiu.s, 59, 28, and Josephus, Antiq. 19, 1, 2. 9 * 202 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. passage from liis domicile to the temple of Castor and Pollux. His assigned reason for so doing was, that he might have them for door-keepers.^^ 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,^^ may have been the reason assigned by his nephew. Caligula’s unsound nervous organization, combined witli sleeplessness,^^ occasioned or aggravated impatience. He was aware of the tendency, for he regarded his child as in- heriting it from himself.^^ This impatience may not only have mingled with his denunciation of aristocratic crinie,^^ his utterances of contempt for aristocratic hobbies,^ and 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, Did. 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 Avhich orators sometimes (Smith, Did. 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. Galig. 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. Sueton. Calig. 23. Caligula was unable (Sueton. Calig. 50) to sleep more than three hours in a night and then not soundly. “ He thought its excitability the surest proof that it was his child.” — Sueton. Calig. 25. See Appendix, Note G, foot-notes 96 and 114. ^ 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 swa}^ Caligula to its purposes, employed a mob who should praise him (Dio Cass. 59 , 13) as the young Augustus. §iii.] CimONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 203 of indignation at venal or partisan lawyers and courts, but witli his criticisms of things disconnected from poli- tics.^^ 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 wliich they did not deserve. lie 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.^® 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 orthodox 3 ^ Virgil’s perversion of the Erythrajan 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, Bohn’s trans. “ 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, Bohn’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. 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. ^ “ 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,^^ 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 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,®^ while his personal superintendence of workmen,®^ it was not rendered remarkable by any pnblic 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 Fidense, his was likely to pass into oblivion from an uninterrupted series of pros- perity.” — Sueton. Calig. 81, Bohn’s trans. Caligula lived on one hill and the temple of Jupiter Capitoliinis, 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 Capitoliiie area.” — Sueton. Calig. 22. 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 Didymcean Apollo at Miletus, and building a town on a ridge of the Alps ; but, above all, for cutting through the isthmus in Achaia ; and even sent a centurion of the first rank to measure out the work.” — Sueton. Calig. 21, Bohn 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 Cains y 45, Paris edit. pp. 732, lines 205 §iil] chronological NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. and his attention at judicial tribunals or in the Senate,^ 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.^ 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.^ 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-ll) 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. Dio Cass. 59 , 18. “.He made a bridge, of about three [Roman] miles and a half in length, from Baiie to the mole of Puteoli, collecting trading vessels from all quarters, moonng 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. 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 shortl}^ afterwards, in A. D. 38, when a large fire occurred, he had means to indemnify the sufferers. JUDAISM AT KOME. 206 [CH. VIII. stated, aid some readers and serve as a starting-point for subsequent inquirers. A. D. 37. March 17? or 27? until in August. Caligula utters a funeral oration on Tiberius ; pays liis legacies; 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 1 TO December 31, Caligula ill. Conspiracy of Herod and the Jewish aristocracy at Alexandria, prompted and sup- ported by the Eoman Senate, breaks out in October.^® They kidnap ITaccus. A. D. 38. Caligula in the beginning of the year still convalescent.^^ Philo’s embassy to Caligula in midwin- ter. Macro intrusted with investigation and settlement of matters at Alexandria. Drusilla, sister of Caligula, dies. Tlie conspiracy at Alexandria having been put down, its leaders are punished. .Alexander, Philo’s brother, put under arrest. Macro is vTohably 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 Pome (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 Pome (the same day ?)^® for Flaccus (cp. pp. 97, 100, 101) was kidnapped during the feast of tabernacles within a year from the death of Tiberius. Caligula was consul in 37, 39, 40, and 41, but not in 38. This ac- cords with inability to assume that office on the first of January. The consuls, in their official oath (January 1), did not (Dio Cass. 59, 9) in- clude what Tiberias had established, perhaps because Caligula could not yet superintend matters. 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. §iii.] CHKONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 207 the armies of Gaul and Germany. Goes for a time beyond the Ehine. Visits the north coast of Gaul. A. D. 40. Caligula, January 1, is at Lyons.^ Eemains in Gaul, or its neighborhood, until about September. The aristocracy persecute the popular party and prepare for rebellion. Caligula returns to Eoine about Septem- ber."^ Puts two or tliree 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."^ Later occurrences need a fuller statement. The deatli of jMacro, tliough 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.'^ Sueton. Calig. 17. Suetonius {Calig. 49) says that he entered the city on his birthday, less than four months before he perished. His birtliday 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. § viii. 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, ' / wish that you had but one neck.* ” — DioCass. 59, 18. 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 themJ^ 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!' 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.'^^ 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.*^^ 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 offlce, such conduct might be permissible, but you are committing no ordinary injustice in thus maligning your former ruler.” "" 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 ; 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, Dio Cass. 59, 13. Compare, touching prosecutors. Appendix, Note 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. See note 55. 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. Dio Cass. 59, 16. 7^ Dio Cass. 59, 24. This meant that the feelings of the popular party should be respected equally as those of the patricians. §ra.] 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.'^ The common soldiers, as in A. D. 14, showed no predilection for aristo- cratic plans. Two sisters of Caligula — the two to wliom he had not intrusted the government during his illness — were concerned in the rebellion, and were, on that account, banished.®^ Probably some of the Gallic aris- tocracy co-operated or had been co-operating with that of lioine.^^ Wlien patricians gained power, after Caligula’s death, they, thougli not immediately, elected members of the Gallic aristocracy to seats in the Senate.^^ Whether at llome 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. Pompon ius, a relative of Caligula, was a poet of cul- ture and learning, an intimate friend of the elder Pliny, wdio wrote his life.^^ A remark of his biographer, in- Suetonius (Calig. 44) mentions the dismissal of officers, assigning, however, as reasons what must have been patrician misrepresentations. Sueton. Calig, 24 ; Dio Cass. 59, 22. 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. Tacitus, An. 11, 23-25. Compare the sympathy of the Jewish with the Roman aristocracy in Ch. V. § viii. Tacitus, An. 5, 8. Pliny, Scn.^ Nat. Hist. 7, 18, 3; Pliny, Jun. 3, 5, 3. “ In our times [a. d. 74] Poinponius Sccimdus fully equals N 210 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. signia . . . cognoscuntur , . . in Pomponio consulari poeta niingnam ructasse, seems fairly to imply that his habits of eating and drinking must have been temperate. His Domitius Afer in dignity or enduring fame. — de Orator. Dial. 13. Pliny mentions ( 14 , 6, 3) having in his Life of Tom'poiiiius described a supper given by the latter to Caligula, coenamque quam rrincipi [Princeps ?'] illi dedit. As this supper took place A. D. 40 or 41 (one hundred and sixty years after the consulship of L. Opimius), 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 eTrto'/c'^Trrwi/, 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 lielpless 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 Cjesar, that he might shut up his own — bread and water "were wanting ? When he owned so many streams rising and falling on his own property, he begged drops of water ; he perished from hanger 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. §iii.] 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,^^ and after a confinement of seven years had been set at liberty by the truce which Caligula on his accession effected between contending parties.^ During the latter's absence in Gaul, Pornponius must have been rearrested, and one at least of his freedwomen was tor- tured ineflectually 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 Pornponius to his own liouse 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 tlie only way 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 Pornponius, un- able to help himself, perished from want. ^ See in the Appendix, Note G, foot-note 114. Caligula selected es- pecially the prosecutions for unbelief as of senatorial origin. Caligula on his accession “ set at liberty those in prison (of whom one was Quintus [?] Pornponius Secundus [Tac. An. 6 , 18], who for seven 3 ’ears 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. Aii. 5, 8) a friend of Sejanus and (Pliny, 13, 26, l) kept relics of the Gracchi. Dio Cassius (59, 26) applies to the woman the ambiguous term eraipa, wife or mistress. Pornponius 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 KOME. [CH. VIIL Patrician accounts are silent as to the sufferings of Pomponius, and charge the brutal usage of his freed- woman, not upon their own party, but upon Caligula, to whom, as to Tiberius, they attributed their own crimes.®^ 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.^® We now go back. Caligula, who had been absent about a year, turned to- wards Kome. 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.®^ 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 ^ See Appendix, Note G, foot-note 114. “ 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 hot only 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, .')) calls the man Pompedius. On patrician views of testimony by slave or freedman against master or patron, see jjp. 76, 77 ; compare Ch. V. § 5 ; also Dio Cass. 60 , 15 , 16 . 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 Polyh. 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, Against Flac. 21). §111.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 213 were condemned for conspiracy, or for crimes against the popular party, is a point on wliich 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.^^ This was in the eyes of patricians an unpardonable offence, and insured his assassination.^^ 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 IDoints,^^ 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.^ The Senate (see Ch. V. § x. 1) had, in A. D, 14, usurped the elec- toral riglits of popular assemblies. Caligula “restored electoral assem- blies to the citizens and multitude {centuries and tribes — Dio Cass. 59,9 ; compare 59, 20. “lie tried also, by recalling the custom of Co- mitia, to restore suffrage to the citizens.” — Sueton. Calig. 16. Chcerea, who assassinated Caligula, had been active (see Tacitus, An. 1 , 32 ) in the attempted rebellion of A. D. 14, against Tiberius. 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, 19 ) 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. “ Caius Caesar put to death by scourging, in one da}% Sextus Papinius, WHOSE FATHER WAS OF CONSULAR RANK ; Betilieiius Bassus, his quaestor, the son of his procurator, and other Roman knights and senators. . . . Afterwards, . . . wdiile 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. YIII. 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.^^ 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.^^ 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,^® 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 ROxMAN 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. 119C, 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 , V) 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. Y. note 80. The attendance of Cajuto 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. Sueton. Calig. 49. Claudius put to death ‘‘thirty-five senators and more than three hundred Roman knights.” — Sueton. Claud. 29. Another authority §iii.] CIirtONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 215 operated with the patrician majority, murdering those whom it wished murdered. Caligula stood in its way, 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.^^ 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 any order touching it. Yet he informs us that no plainly wmrded order to that effect had been issued.^® 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.^^^ mentions “thirty senators killed, three hundred and fifteen Roman knights, and many (221) others.” — De Morte Claudii Ludus, 14, l, in Seneca, 0pp. Philos. Yol. 2, p. 299. Dio Cassius (59, -l) speaks of Caligula as “at first forbidding any one to set up images of himself.” According to a Jew, “Caius managed l>ublic 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, Whistnn’s trans. “The letter respecting the erection of the statue was written not in plain terms.” — Philo, Embassy to Caius^ 31, Bohn’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. Josephus, Antiq. 18, 8, 2 and 8. 100 “ While we were anxiously considering, ... a man arrived, with 216 JUDAISM AT EOME. [CH. VIII. Again : the story 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, whilst 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.^^^ If we now examine into the date of these events, we learn from Philo that he and his companions came to Pome in midwinter, 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 ! Gains 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, Bohn’s trans. ; Paris edit. pp. 700, 701. The statements or insinuations of Tacitus {A 71 . 12 , 54 ; Hist. 5 , 9 ) will appear in our next two sections. Petronius “determined to write a letter to Cains. ... It was just at the moment the very height of the wheat harvest and of all the other cereal crops.” — Philo, Embassy, 33, Bohn’s trans.; 0pp. Paris edit, pp. 723, 724. Compare Embassy, 34; 0pp. Paris edit. pp. 723, 724. 102 Embassy, 29; 0pp. Paris edit. p. 701, line 10. §iii.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 37-41. 217 DicfEarchia,^^^ otherwise called Puteoli, where the lattePs 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 liarvest. That winter’s events also preclude the supposition that Caligula could have been absent at Dicaearchia 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.^^* 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 108 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. ; 0pp. 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; 0pp. 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 JUDAISM AT DOME. 218 [CH. VIII. second letter reached Petronius after his assassination, become absurdities. Further: The Jews during Caligula’s reign multiplied at Eome 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,^^^ 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 chain 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 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 man}^ benefits.” — Embassy, 35, Bohn’s trans. ; 0pp. 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 Gains.” — 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. Josephus, Antiq. 19, 6, 1. §iii.] CIIPvONOLOGICAL 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 liopeless.^^"^ Accompanying circumstances need a word of explanation. Effigies of friends were a common ornament in house- holds. Public disyJay or public destruction of such effigies implied political friendship, or hostility, to the person whom, or the cause which, they rey)resented.^^® Thus, had lioman customs prevailed among us during our late rebellion, individuals wlio 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 efflgy of Abraham Lincoln or of Jefferson Uavis in front of their premises. The enemies of Caligula had been tlirowing down his efligies and those of liis relatives, expressing thereby a wish to over- throw his government. Caligula wrote, that inside of Jerusalem tlie prevention of images, or non-Jewish sacri- flces, sliould 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.^^^ His views of images or sacrifices Josephus, Antiq, 18, 8, 2 ; 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. See the attempted destruction of Piso’s statues, Tacitus, An. 3, 14. Livilla’s are mentioned as destroyed, Tacitus, A?i. 6, 2 ; those also of Sejanus, Dio Cass, 58, 11 ; and of Vitellius, Tacitus, Hist. 3, 85. Caligula “wrote : If in the adjoining countries, except only the METROPOLIS, any person wishing to erect altars, or temples, or images. JUDAISM AT HOME. 220 [CH. VIIL cannot be inferred from this order. The army, when dan- ger was over, returned to its former quarters.^^^ 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 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, 0pp., 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, P)ohn’s trans. ; 0pp., Paris edit. p. 732, lines 20-25. The movement into Germany was 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. Petronius “took the army out of Ptolemais and returned to Anti- och.” — Josephus, JVars, 2, 10 , 5 , Whiston’s trans. This is represented as occurring in the spring, though whether in that of 38, or of some later 3 ^ear, is open to surmise. ' The populace “set up in every [?] one of them [the synagogues] §m.] 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 — juobahly when he was about to return from Gaul — persons who had comjuo- inised themselves must liave undertaken, by ridiculous homage of his statues, to divert indignation from their niisdeeds.^^2 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 Ptoman 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 Cains ; 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, Bohn’s trans. ; Opj). Baris 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. “ He (?) also instituted a tem])le 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 p(U’sons in the city offered themselves as candidates for the honor of being his priests, and I)urchased 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, Bohn’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 , 16), though he had left the city before the vote was passed. 222 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. Eoman 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 Eome ; 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 Beign 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, and the Jewish commonalty in that city, for it must have been they who rebelled against the new arrangement, were crushed. 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. Eor the same reason prosecutions for unbelief must have been intermitted.^^^ A decree was, however, issued for restricting Judaism and Gentile monotheism at Eome, and therewith perhaps for abolishing clubs of the popu- lar party. Josephus, Antiq. 19, 5, 1. 11^ Josephus, Antiq. 19, 5, 2. Tacitus would like us to believe {An. 12, 54 ) that a rebellion of the same date in Judiea was against Caligula, and that it quieted down on the accession of Claudius. 113 Claudius “in like manner put an end, not in his edicts alone, but practically, to prosecution for unbelief.” — Dio Cassius, 60, 3 . 116 << jjg (jjq 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 (iratpei- 223 §iv.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 41-51. 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.^^^ Citizens of all classes were put to torture.^^® Body guards were murdered.^^^ Executions must have been constantly going on.^^^ 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 po[)ular party, but a previous prosecution of some one for unbelief because he had sold warm water (Dio Cassius, 59, ii) suggests that the article may have been spe- cially used in some way by adherents of Judaism. If the associations w^ere 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 wdiich 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. See pp. 76, 77, with Avhich compare note 72 of this chapter. 118 “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 mastei’s or of freedmen against their patrons. Josephus, Antiq. 19, 5, 1; quoted in Ch. V. note 109. ^20 See note 96. 224 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. ferred suicide to acceptance of a seat in such a hodyd^^ 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 Rome without imperial permis- sion.^^ 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 images 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.^^^ Reaction would by many of its supporters have been deemed incomplete unless some outward attention to heathen religious rites .were enforced. In determining ^21 Claudius “rebuked so severely those (equestrians) who disobeyed [a summons to convene with the Senate] that some committed suicide.” — Dio Cass. 60, IL 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, 2 ?) that he might avoid being made senator. Suidas, art. Klaudios. Compare an exception to the law’ made in A. D. 49, ob egregiam in Patres revcrentiam, “because of, conspicuous deference to the Senate.” —Tac. An. 12, 23. Conscious tyranny begets suspicion. The custom w’as initiated of searching every one, man or w^oman (Dio Cass. 60, 8), wdio approached the emperor, nor w^as it inter- mitted until the accession of Vespasian. “Since the city was filled with a multitude of images, — for it w’as 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. 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 Eomans, 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.^^^ But ob- servances which ministered to no human appetite or pas- sion needed repeated governmental effort to prevent their neglect or extinction.^^^ 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, primorcs^ of Etruria had of their own accord, or under prOxMPTIng from the Roman FATiiEPtS, retained the knowledge and taught it to their slaves, in familias projoagassCy 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 u])on 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 aristocracy of Etruria, there must have been utter inattention to the subject at Rome. And if this Etrurian 10* o 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.^^"^ 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 j)lural 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 w^as 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 J uno 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 viiW uphold (!) as legal commands, but not as acceptable to the gods.” — Seneca, quoted by Augustine, De Civitate Deiy 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 ordei'ed to withdraw.” — Suetonius, Claud. 22, Bohn’s trans. Did the deities share patrician contempt for workmen and slaves ? §IV.] CHKONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 41-51. 227 Eeverence for omens was part of the reactionary creed, hut 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 rnoon.^^® In A. D. 49 augury, after an extinction of twenty-five years, was for a time restored.^*^^ 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 dillerent reason was assigned. His recall has been attributed to Agrippina, tlie 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,’^^ 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.^^^ Some of his utterances touch- ^2^ Dio Cass. 60, 2G. Tacitus, An. 12, 23. 130 a Agrippina . . . obtained for Annreus Seneca a reversal of his exile, and with it the pretorship ; favors wliich slie 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, S, Bohn’s trans. Compare An. 13, 2-4, where Seneca and Burrhus are mentioned as rectorcs^ guardians, or directors of the emperor’s youth. “It is a great solace of my miseries to notice his [the emperor’s] Avorld-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.” — Seueca, Ad Polyh. Consolat. 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, Diet, 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.^^^ § V. A. D, 52 - 54. Expulsion of the Jeios. Claudius as Belied. 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 Eome 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,^^^ 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, 0pp. 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 Claiidii, 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. “Since, however, the [Sabbath] usage of .that most villanous race, sceleratissimm gentis, has so gained strength that it pervades all land.s, the conquered have given laws to the conquerors.” — Seneca, quoted by Augustine, De Civitate Dei, 6, ii. “ 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 grumblers] pressed around him with tumultuous clamor, and after having driven him to the extremity of the Forum, were violently pusliing against him, until, § V.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 52-54. 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.^^'^ 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.^^ If the reader deems the preceding summer, or winter, more ju'obable, lie must then place the subsequent train of events so much earlier. The earthquakes and widespread famine must liave caused, or brought to its culmination, a Messianic excite- ment ; and Claudius, according to Suetonius, expelled from lionie the Jews, who, under l^he impulse of Chris- tianity, were keeping up a constant disturbance.” The in a circle of soldiers, he hrohe 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. 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, after its occurrence, places on the 5th of Fehruar}’’, a. d. 63. 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, n), .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 probably 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 Judoios impulsore Chresto assidue tumuliuantes, Roma expulit.'^ — Sueton. Claudius, 25. The omission Iw 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 ROME. [CH. VIII. 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 be 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 ; 0pp. 1, p. 438 : “ Believers on Christ are, and are called, good, The change of one letter would make it read are, and are called, Christians.” The same writer in his Pcedag. X, 44 ; 0pp. 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,” 6Vt XpLcrros 6 Kvpios. And again in Strom. 5, 67 ; 0pp. 2, p. 685, 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 is the whole life of men who have known Christ, ; 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 ©eos, 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^<^'^oraToi, VERY GOOD.” And again. Apology, 1, 4, “We are accused of being Christians, but it is unjust to hate rh 5^ XP ' nf ^ vov , what is good.” Theophilus probably intended the same play on the ordinary pronunciation of this word when he says 1, 1 (Justin. Opp. p. 338), “I confess that I am a Christian . . . who hopes to be etjxpv^^ros 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 [xp'^?artisan of that movement had accused a rival leader of it, before a South Carolina court, of being an abolitionist. Men would have felt concerning it as the Gentiles felt touching the accusation against Paul. 235 §v.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 52-54. should attempt to put liis statue in the temple' at Jerusa- lem.^^2 There are two ways of accounting for this fear. The Jewish aristocracy, in their effort at self-exculpation after the death of Caligula, may have created an impres- sion among their countrymen that an emperor of Home would naturally attempt to rival God. More probably, however, the Eoman aristocracy undertook this insult to Judaism (cp. Indirect Testimony^ III. 8) and were foiled, with aid perhaps of Jewish gold, by the younger Herod Agrippa, long in the family of Claudius. If we now turn to Paul’s epistles, we shall find two at least — those to the Thessalonians — which were written at this period.^^^ Both bear marks of a Messianic ex- pectation more intense than can be found in his other writings.^^^ This expectation is, moreover, in the second 1^2 Tacitus omits or suppresses all mention of Jewish expulsion by Claudius. He mentions a local trouble between two Roman governors, one of Judaea and Samaria, the other of Galilee, giving only individual reasons for it, but adding: “Fear remained [since Caligula’s time] lest any one of the emperors should give the same commands.” — Tac. An, 12, 54. Only Claudius had reigned since, whom alone Tacitus must have had in mind, though he does not mention him. The commands are unex- plained in the context ; but in another work the same writer says that the Jews “being commanded by Caius Cajsar (Caligula) to place his effigy in [their] temple, took up arms in preference, which commotion the death of Caesar terminated.” — Tacitus, Hist, 5, 9 . The epistles to the Thessalonians were obviously written from Athens, or Corinth, shortly after Paul had^ left Thessalonica ; see 1 Thess. 3, 1, 2, 5 , 6, and 2 Thess. 2, 2, which last seems to imply that the second letter was written partly to remove misapprehension of the first, and, therefore, while the former was fresh in the minds of the Thes- salonians. 154 <<\Ye living who remain until the Lord’s coming shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself — with summons given by an archangel’s blast upon the trumpet of God — shall descend from heaven and the Christian dead shall rise first. Then we living who remain shall be caught up with them, enveloped by clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall ever be with him. . . . But ye brethren are not in darkness, that that day come upon you like a thief.” — 1 Thess. 4, 15 - 17 ; 5, 4 . Paul’s statement (4, 15 ), that this was “in 236 JUDAISM AT EOME. [CH. VIII. letter, connected by Paul with the Imj>ersonation of Heathenism — the Heathen emperor — who was to pre- cede the Messiah’s comingd^^ If we remember that Paul accordance with the Lord’s teaching,” refers, probably, to what has been recorded in Matt. 24, 30 , 31 . The event recorded in Acts 1, 9 , may have caused the belief that Christians were to be enveloped during their as- cension by a cloud. In a preceding verse Paul says of the condemned, “ The [day of] anger is finally upon them.” — 1 Thess. 2, 16 . 155 “We beseech you, brethren, by the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering to him, that you be not readily shaken out of your understanding nor put into trepidation, neither by [supposed im- pulse of the] spirit [in any of you], nor yet by teaching or epistle, because of its coming from us, as if the day of the Lord were close upon you. Let no one mislead you in any wise, for [it will not occur] unless thei'e first have taken place The falling away [from monotheism ?] and unless the Sinful Man, the Son of Destruction, shall have appeared opposing himself to, and raising himself above, everything divine or hallowed [literally, ‘called God or shrine’] so as to seat himself in the temple of God showing himself for God.” “Do you not remember that while I was yet with you I said these things to you, and now you know what hinders that he should be man- ifested in his own time, for the secret of Law-lessness [the as yet undeveloped manifestation of heathenism] is already at work. Only let him who thus far hinders it be removed, and then the Law-less One shall be manifested whom the Lord Jesus will destroy by the breath of his mouth and shall annihilate by the brightness of his appearing, [that Lawless One] whose appearing among those who are to be de- stroyed is, through the working of Satan, [to be] with all power and false signs and wonders and with every unjust means of misleading, because they woultl not accept that love of the truth wliich would save them; and on this account God will send them a deceitful working [of miracles] so that they will believe what is false, that all may be con- demned who do not believe the truth, but find pleasure in injustice.” — 2 Thess. 2, 1 - 12. A comparison of the Sibylline passage (3, 63 - 92 ), cited on pp. .138 - 140, will leave scarcely a doubt that Paul, for the time being, shared some of the Jewish expectations which originated since Caligula’s time. There are some to whom a discovery of this will be painful. May I suggest to such, that they examine the facts carefully, but without mistrusting the ' result. It was for the Deity, not for us, to determine in how fiir the minds of the apostles — subordinate agents in the introduction of Chris- § V.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 52-51 237 was especially the apostle to the Gentiles, and that the letter was written to Gentiles in a city whence he had been driven by Jews, we can better conceive the power- ful hold which this Jewish conception had already gained on the minds of men. Tlie apostle mentions, as already KNOWN TO THE Thessalonians, some one who tempora- rily restrained the expected manifestation of heathenism. This person must have been the younger Agrippa, long in tlie household of,^^^ and at that date revisiting, Clau- dius.^^®^ Paul seems to have had a good opinion of him; and the known facts of his life show him to have been a much better man than his father. Paul’s belief in a speedy coming of his master did not divert his attention from ordinary duties and he seems some years afterwards to liave regarded the Christians at Pome as not wholly free from blame, or at least as need- ing to be cautioned.^^^ Excitement in the community % tianity — needed to be freed by supernatural agency from the errors of their time. Josephus, Antiq. 19, 9, 2. Idem, TFaj'S^ 2, 12, 7. 167 ‘‘King Agrippa, do you believe the j^roiihcts ? I know that you believe them.” — Acts 26, 27. 168 “We exliort you ... to emulate quiet, to attend to your own business, to work with your own hands . . . that your relations to THOSE OUTSIDE may be appropriate, and [also] that }"on be dependent on no one.” — 1 Thess. 4, 10-12. ‘*See that no one returns evil for evil to any one ; but endeavor to show kindness not only to each other, but to ALL MEN.” — 1 Thess. 5, 15. ' “ Let every one show subordination to the authorities over him. No authority exists save by [permission of] God. Existing ones are [to be regarded as] God’s appointments, so that whoever is insubordinate to such authority opposes God’s appointment. But such opposers will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a cause of terror to [doers of] good works, but to [doers of] evil. Do 3 mu wish to have no fear of the officer ? Do what is good and you shall have his praise. For he is God’s servant for your good. But, if jmu do evil, fear him, for it is not without object that he carries a sword ; since he is God’s avenging servant for the punishment of the evil doer. AVherefore subordination should be shown, not merely from dread of punishment, but for con- science sake. “This also is the reason of your paying tribute. For they are God’s 238 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. must have been strong, if one so practical as Paul shared it so largely. If we now turn to the Chronicon of Eusebius, as given by Jerome, we shall find under the twelfth year of Clau- dius, that is, in the year A. D. 52, that the apostle Philip was affixed to a cross and stoned at Hierapolis in the small province called Asia.^®^ Crucifixion implies Eoman agency, and stoning implies participation by Jews. The Chronicon ignores all those other events of the year which have been given. It cannot, therefore, have been biassed by them in assigning the date. The disposition to make Christians responsible for the Messianic excite- ment must have reached from Eome to Hierapolis. This latter city, according to a Jewish writer, was “ wedded to wealth alone,” which means, doubtless, that it was very conservative. Paul, though mentioning Christians there,^^^ does not speak of having ever set foot within its borders. Hitherto any Jewish indignation against Christians would seem to have come exclusively from conservatives. There is, however, in the Sibylline Oracles a passage, be- longing either to A. D. 52, or A. D. 65, and certainly not from a conservative hani^ which wears the appearance of ministers attending to this business. Render, therefore, your dues to all ; tribute to whom tribute is due ; custom to whom custom ; fear [in the sense of obedience] to whom fear; honor to whom honor.” — Rom. 13,1-7. See Jerome’s Works, ed. Vallarsius, Vol. 8, col. 665, 666. The reader must not be misled by the year 54 affixed thereto. The same year is meant which other chronologers call 52, namely, the twelfth of Claudius. Philip was the apostle to whom Gentiles (literally Greeks) came when they wished to see Jesus, as we are told in John 12, 21. It is not improbable, therefore, that he would be among the first of the twelve to commence work in a heathen land. Polycrates who became pastor or bishop of Ephesus near the close of the second century? (Euseb. Ecc. Hist. 5, 22), is quoted by Eusebius {Ecc. Hist. 5, 24) as saying that the apostle Philip had “fallen asleep” at Hierapolis. Sibyl. Orac. 5, 318. Coloss. 4, 13. §v.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 52-54. 239 an unfriendly allusion to them, or to the Gentile portion of themd^^ The reaction against Judaism in A. D. 52 helps to ex- plain the extra scale on which people were made to kill each other for popular amusementd^ If l^aul’s Epistle to the Galatians were written, as generally supposed, shortly after those to the Thessalonians, we have in it tes- timony to a sudden growth among Christians thereof zeal for Jewish observances, which implies some such sudden alienation from Gentiles as the events of the year at Eome would explain^®® An indirect result of the excitement in A. D. 52 was the origin at the close of that year, or early in 53, of an institu- tion which, in one or a different shape, is now, with slight exceptions, universal throughout Christendom ; the insti- tution of religious gatherings on the first day of the week, subsequently called Sunday. Paul previously, though teaching, doubtless, when opportunity offered, had not, so far as we can judge from the record, set apart any day but the Sabbath for his regular public ministrations.^^" 164 The harvest is near when instead of Prophets, Certain deceivers shall arrive blabbing upon earth. And Beliar shall come and shall do many wonders [Before mortals. Then shall subversion of righteous men. And robbery of the chosen and faithful, take place ; Of these, to wit (?) Hebrews, and terrible anger shall come upon them.]” Sibyl. Orac. 2, 165-170. If the above translation be adopted, the whole passage may be from one hand, that of a Jew. If in the last line the translation “and ” be substi- tuted for “to wit,” the part in brackets would seem to come from a Jew- ish Christian, and must belong to A. D. 64 or 65. The first three lines may, in that case, have previously existed, or may be an allusion to Paul’s teaching. On this latter supposition also the whole passage might be from one hand, that of a Jewish Christian. Compare Ch. VI. § v. See Ch. V. note 12. 166 -wonder that you have so soon transferred yourselves ... to another glad-tidings, which is no glad-tidings.” — Galat. 1, 6. Paul had passed through Galatia (Acts 16, C) shortly before entering Greece. Even at Thessalonica, shortly before Paul’s arrival at Corinth, though his converts were mostly Gentiles (see note 144), yet his public 240 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. Circumstances at Corinth called for a different course. He had separated from the Jews and founded a society mainly of Gentiles, which met in the house of a Gentile Christian near the synagogueJ^® If these Gentiles had kept the Sabbath, the law to which they were amenable would probably, during the existing reaction against Juda- ism, have been enforced against them. This may have prompted Paul, who did not regard the Sabbath as bind- ing, to initiate a different stated day for meeting. The first allusion to this stated day is in his letter to the Christians at this jJace.^^^ After leaving Corinth he separated in like manner from the Jews at Ephesus, and taught in the school of one Tyrannus, a Gentile, as we may judge from his name. Subsequently to this separa- tion we find a second allusion to the first day of the week as, apparentljq a stated day of meeting.^'^ The locality of the custom is a small seaport, considerably north of Ephesus, through which much of the travel between the latter city and Macedonia, seems to have passed. Claudius died in A. D. 54. Earely has any community rivalled Pandemonium more successfully than Eome did during his reign. Justice was venal. No pretence of it was made towards slaves or freedmen.^^^ A foreigner had no cliance of it unpurchased against a citizen.^"^ services were (Acts 17, 2) on the Sabbath. The gathering of the apostles (John 20, 19 , 26 ) bears no resemblance to a setting apart of the day for PUBLIC SERVICES. Acts 18, 6, 7. 169 1 Cor. 16, 2. Acts 20, 7. i"i Sneton. Claud, 25, quoted in note on p. 87. 1'^^ “Since in all things the Romans had preference given them over foreigners, many petitioned him for it [Roman citizenship] and bought it from Messalina and the emperor’s favorites ; and on this account, though bought at first for great sums, it afterwards by repetition became so cheap as to cause a proverb that ‘by giving a broken glass vessel you will be made a citizen.’” — Dio Cassius, 60, 17. About five years after the death of Claudius a military tribune told Paul, “ I paid a large sum for this citizenship.” — Acts 22, 28 . The De Morte Claudii Ludus (3,) represents one of the Fates as saying that she had forborne a little to §VJ.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 54-02. 241 Consequently sale of citizenship became a vast traffic, bringing enormous revenues to such as controlled it. Brutality equalled venality. The watchword which Clau- dius repeatedly gave the soldiers may have been due only to prevalent vindictiveness, or may liave been in- tended to confront the humanizing precej)ts of mono- theism. § VI. A. D. 54- 62. Earlier Years of Nerds Reign, The accession of JSTero, with such ministers and coun- sellors as Burrhus and Seneca, placed the government more in accord with human rights and human improve- ment. Taking life in public games, whether at Koine or elsewhere, was prohibitedd^^ Distaste for wars of con- quest showed itself by a proposition to withdraw the troops from Britain.^"^ A man entitled to freedom had liis right recognized, much to the disgust of ultra-patri- cianism.^"® Under these circumstances, it is possible that converts to Judaism or to monotheism may liave been less on their guard. The reactionaries singled out for their attack a lady of rank, Pomponia, a relative doubtless, and perliaps a sister of the Pomponius whom they had persecuted in the reigns of Tiberius and Caligula. A friend of this lady, a granddaugliter of Tiberius, had in tlie reign of Claudius been banished and murdered, without oppor- tunity of answer to the charges against her.^'"^ Pomponia despatch Claudius, that he might have time to make a present of citizen- ship to the few of mankind who had not yet received it. 173 << Yo strike a man when he has already offered provocation.’* — Dio Cass. 60, 16 . Compare Homer, Odyssey^ 16, 72 , 21, 133 , whence it is taken with omission of its connection. Another historian says, that the above watchword was almost sure to be given “ when at any time he had taken vengeance on an enemy or a conspirator.” — Sueton. Claud. 42, Bohn’s trans. See quotations and references on p. 79. Sueton. Nero, 18. Tac. An. 13, 27 , quoted on p. 87. . 1’'" Dio Cass. 60, 18 ; Sueton. Claud, 29. 11 p 242 JUDAISM AT KOME. [CH. VIII. had put on mourning for her friend so unjustly treated, and had worn it ever afterwards. This could not legally be charged against her, though it and the sympathy which it implied towards the popular party had probably much to do with the accusation. She was charged with Foreign Superstition. The administration did not, per- haps, feel strong enough simply to ignore or dismiss such a charge ; but under old precedent the matter was turned over to her husband, who in the presence of relatives acquitted her.^^® In A. D. 62 ISTero, after repudiating his previous wife, married Poppsea. She was professedly, as will hereafter appear, a monotheist, though, after due allowance for mis- representation by Tacitus, she can have done little honor to her profession, and seems to have imitated Jewish cus- toms rather than moral aims. The friendship of her father with Sejanus implies that he belonged to the popular party, and is another instance of a connection between monotheism and popular rights. § VII. A. D, 63-70. Fire at Rome. Jewish War. Per- secution of Christians. In the beginning of A. D. 63, fearful earthquakes shook Southern Italy.^^^ The universal apprehension may have. Tac. An. 13 , 32. See in Appendix, Note G, foot-notes 86, 88, and text prefixed, a baffled effort of the Senate to forbid mourning. Tac. An. 13 , 45. 180 it have heard, Lucilius, most excellent of men, that Pompeii, » celebrated city of Campania, has settled . . . because of an earthquake, by which the adjoining regions have suffered, and this during the winter, when our ancestors were accustomed to promise immunity from such evils. On the nones [that is, on the 5th] of February, in the consulship of Reg' ulus and Virginius, this shock occurred, which devastated with great havoc Campania, [a section] never secure from this evil, but hitherto un- harmed and let off with a fright. Part of Herculaneum is in ruins, and the remainder is in a precarious condition. . . . Solace must be found for those in trepidation, and the intense fright must be remedied. For what can seem safe to any one if the world itself shakes and its most solid por- tion gives way ? ... No [other] evil is without some means of escape. . . , § VII.] CIIKONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 63-70. 243 stimulated Messianic expectations among J ews and Chris- tians. In the month of June, 64, the city of Eome was nearly destroyed by a fire. Out of fourteen sections of the city only four remained untouched. The other ten were nearly or wholly destroyed. Here was an event — Ptome’s de- struction — which for more than a century had by many Jews been deemed the precursor of their Messiah’s com- ing. Party strife and Sibylline predictions found place in the capital, whilst in Judaea the autumn cannot have This [alone] is widespread, inevitable, . . . for it not only swallows homes, or families, or cities, but nations, and overthrows whole sections of coun- try. At one time it buries them under ruins, at another it hides them in a deep gulf, and leaves no trace whereby the former existence of what has passed away can be discerned. Above most distinguished cities, the soil extends with no vestige of former habitation. ‘‘Nor are there wanting those who fear this kind of death more, by which they go, homes and all, into the abyss, and are borne alive from the number of the living ; as if all fate did not lead to the same goal. ... It matters not whether one stone destroy me, or whether I am crushed by a mountain, . . . whether I give up my spirit in the light and the unconfined [air] or in the vast bosom of the gaping earth ; whether I descend alone into the deep, or with a great accompaniment of perish- ing nations. It matters not what tumult accompanies my death. It itself is the same everywhere. “ Let us take courage against a destruction which can neither be avoided nor foreseen. Let us cease listening to those who have renounced Cam- pania, who after this calamity have emigrated and affirm that they will never go near that region. Who will promise that this or that ground stands on better foundation ? . . . We err if we think that any part of the earth is excepted and exempt from this danger.” — Seneca, A'a^. Qucest. 6, 1, 1-3, G- 10. According to Dio Cassius, the common people revived the verse which had caused disturbance in the time of Tiberius : — “ When thrice three hundred years are accomplished. Internal sedition shall destroy the Romans. “And when Nero by way of admonition told them that these words were nowhere found [in the Oracles], they, changing them, sang another Oracle as veritably Sibylline. “ It is as follows : — “ Last of the iEneadae a matricide shall reign.” Dio Cass. 62, 18. 244 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. passed without premonitions of rebellion.^^^ Anti- Jewish policy at Eome soon displaced a previous favoritism to- wards the Jews. Poppsea, their convert and advocate, was, it is alleged, killed by a kick from Nero. The rebellion in J udsea broke out formally in the spring of 65. In the autumn of that year a Eoman legion from Syria marched to Jerusalem, with no great zeal apparently for its capture, and retreated again.^^^ The conservative Jews undertook to quiet matters, and for a year or more seem to have been allowed their way. Josephus, who acted at first with these conservatives, and went as their envoy to Galilee, was bought over by the revolutionists. At the expiration of about a year Florus was murdered, probably by some of the guerillas whom Josephus corn- inanded.^^^ Thereupon the Eoman forces under Ves- pasian, A. D. 67, marched into Galilee, the bands under Josephus scattered, and he, according to his own account {Wars, 3, 6, 3 ; 3, 7, 2, 3), fled to Jotapata, where, after a short siege at that or a later date, he was taken prisoner. By this time the death of Nero and the course of events at Eome led Vespasian to aim at imperial power. While its attainment was undecided, he either did not care to in- crease Jewish enmity towards himself, or else did not wish to spare troops for the Jewish war. It was intermitted for . 1^2 Joseplius, who was born in the first year of Caligula, that is, in the year a. d. 37, went to Rome shortly after he was twenty-six years old, not later, therefore, than the winter of 63 - 64. After seeing Poppsea, and obtaining what he asked, he returned directly, as it seems, to Judaea, and found the revolutionary disturbances already beginning. See Josephus, Life, §§ 1, 3, 4. Josephus, Wars, 2 , 19, 7-9 ; 7 , 1, 3. 1®^ Suetonius, who habitually groups facts without reference to chrono- logical arrangement, says {Vcsjmsian, 4 ), that the Jews ‘‘had rebelled, having murdered their governor, and moreover had put to flight and cap- tured a military eagle from the consular lieutenant of Syria, who was bringing assistance.” If by the consular lieutenant be meant Cestius Callus, wdio was defeated in the autumn of 65, the murder of Gessius Florus cannot have occurred for nearly or (juite a year afterwards. §VII.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 63-70. 245 some time, and completed by his son Titus, who in A. D. 70 captured Jerusalemd®^ We will now return to events at Eome consequent on the fire. That an anti-itoman excitement among Jews sliould afford to patricians occasion for a reaction against them is natural. That some of the reactionaries should have attributed the fire to a people wlio had long anti- cipated and predicted liome’s destruction, is also natu- ral. But so far as we have information, the only pros- ecutions were directed against such Jews as had become Cliristiaiis, and some remarks are requisite in explanation of tliis. Boppaea, Nero’s wife, was a convert to Judaism, and was surrounded by Jews,^®^ — facts which throw light on two statements of Tacitus concerning lier.^®‘ Tliat the class of Jews who surrounded her sliould have sought her aid in attempts to divert the storm from themselves is a matter of course. That they should have obtained it is probable. That the Christian portion of their country- men should be selected as scapegoat was inevitable, since no other was to be found. A similar charge against Christians in A. D. 52 had obtained jiartial creclence. At present any aid from Boppyea was perhaps supplemented by Tigellinus.^®^ • See, for further details of this Jewish rebellion, the Appendix, Note I. On the monotheism of Poppaia, see the direct affirmation of Jo- sephus, Antiq. 20 , 8, 11, quoted in Note B, i. 2, of the Appendix. As to her Jewish surroundings, compare Josephus, Life, § 3, according to which Josephus gained her acquaintance through a Jew, and preferred a petition to her rather than to Nero. Tacitus tells us {An. 13 , 45) that whenever Poppjea went out, her face was partially veiled ; and (An. 16 , 6 ) when she died, her body, instead of being burnt according to Roman customs, was embalmed with spices. Both of these accord with Jewish customs. Tacitus endeavors to hide this by comparing her embalming to that of foreign kings. 188 Tigellinus, Nero’s chief political favorite at this time, had hitherto co-operated with Poppiea. Possibly he had a special motive of his own also for acting against Christians. The following remarks of Juvenal have always been understood as relating to them, and imply plainness of si>eech in one or more of their number : — 246 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. The two charges brought against Christians strengthen the belief that they originated in an effort to divert odium from Jews. The first was that they had destroyed Eome. This was an event which one class of Jews since more than a century had predicted and longed for. Of this crime the Christians were adjudged innocent, but, ac- cording to Tacitus, they were found guilty of ‘‘hatred to mankind ” ; a charge borrowed, like the other, from Describe Tigellinus, you will shine in that kind of a torch Wherein they, standing, burn, who smoke, fastened by their throats, And [who does so] draws [but] a broad furrow in the midst of sand.” Juvenal, Satire, 1 , 155-157. The last line admits more than one translation. I understand it as meaning that the outspoken individual has lost his labor. The passage seems inapplicable, except to the Christians who were thus burned in the gardens of Nero. The statements of Tacitus are anything but lucid. He assumes in the first place — though without assigned reason and contrary to probability — that Nero set fire, to the city. This is at first doubtfully expressed {An. 15 , 40): “Nero seemed to seek the glory of founding a new city and of calling it by his name.” Next we are told {An. 15 , 44): “Neither by human aid nor by liberality of the prince nor by pacifications of the gods could the dis- grace be removed of a general belief that he had ordered the conflagra- tion. Therefore, to end this rumor, Nero substituted as criminals, and inflicted the severest torments on, those — hated because of their crimes — whom the common people call Christians.” According to this, the Christians were innocent. The term “substitute” seems to assume Nero’s guilt. Tacitus afterwards continues: “Therefore, at first, some were seized who confessed [what ?]. Then by their testimony a great multitude were convicted, not so much of having set the city on fire [were they convicted of partly doing this ?j as of hatred for the human race.” If we understand that those first seized confessed having fired the city, their confession would flatly contradict the prior statement by Tacitus, that they had been substituted as criminals. If we understand Tacitus to affirm that they confessed hatred towards the human race, a plausible explanation is that they admitted believing the salvation of Christians, and perdition of all others. It was easy to select for seizure a few narrow- minded and vehement persons, to whose views slight perversion would §vil] chronological narrative, a. D. 63-70. 247 a prevalent allegation against Jews.^^ Whether the charge that Nero set fire to the city had been openly cir- culated before the Christians were persecuted, whether it was skilfully used by those who prompted their per- secution, or whether it grew up afterwards, may admit question. According to Dio Cassius no mention was made of Nero as the incendiary.^^^ The remark, too, already quoted, of Tacitus in his Annals, 15, 40, points rather to a suspicion, which was only likely to grow months later, after the rubbisli had been removed and Nero’s plans for a new city, including a very extensive palace, had been matured and made public. Possibly there was time for this suspicion to grow before the Christians were ar- raigned.^^2 Yet it is plain that if Nero had charged Christians with firing the city, they would have been des- give the appearance of hatred to mankind. A more probable view is that Tacitus, wishing to malign Nero and the Christians, was indifferent to truth or consistency in his statements. His phraseology treats hatred to mankind and the firing of the city as two different grades of the SAME crime cognizable under the law. Josephus says of Apion : “He belies our oath [charging us] as swearing by the God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, to bear no good-will to other nations; especially not to Greeks.” — Arjaiiuit Apion, 2 , 10 (Whiston’s trans. 2, ll). Elsewhere he quotes from the same writer a silly charge that some Greek whom the Jews were fattening in their temple had been found and rescued by Antiochus ; that, accord- ing to the tale of this rescued man, they annually fattened and sacrificed a Greek; after tasting whose entrails (compare Ch. X. note 126) they swore hatred against Greeks. See Josephus, Against Apion, 2, 8 (there are tw’o chapters 8 in the Latin). As Antiochus lived in the second cen- tury before Christ, there was no risk of eye-witnesses remaining to con- tradict the story. 191 “The people steadily cursed Nero, not that they [even] whispered his name, but they cursed those who had set fire to the city.” — Dio Cass. 62, 18. Tacitus details at length {An. 15, 43) the removal of rubbish from the city in vessels to the marshes, as also the plans for the remodelled city. In chapter 44 he continues: “Afterwards, mox, expiations for the gods were sought.” The persecution of the Christians is mentioned as something still later. 248 JUDAISM AT DOME. [CH. VIIL titute of aid from patricians, and would not have been pronounced innocent thereof. Their acquittal under this, the only charge in which Nero could liave been person- ally interested, shows that he was not their accuser. Tlie real accusers, whoever they might be, had been defeated on this point. Extant statements of Paul and also the seizure of Christian leaders in lands distant from Pome, where they could not have taken part in firing the city, are best explained on the supposition that Jews were trying to throw blame on the Christians. Paul’s seizure can be partly elucidated from his own writings. He had previously come to Pome a prisoner, probably in the spring of 62. The Jewish tendencies and surroundings of Poppsea facilitated the ministry on which he entered in the palace.^^^ At one time lie seems to have had hope of reaching imperial ears. He speaks of Christianity as being made known to governments and authorities in heaven-high positions.” In a later letter. 193 <‘i \yish. you to know, brethren, that my affairs have turned out for the advancement of the gospel, so that my bonds as a Cliristian are manifest (or, perhaps, “my bonds bear testimony to my being a Chris- tian”) throughout the whole palace.” — Philip. 1, 12, 13. By the palace must be understood an aggregate of buildings. The gardens seem to have been large enough (Tacitus, Aii. 15, 44) for chariot racing. The connected passage may aid the reader in comprehending subse- quent quotations from Paul, for which reason it is here given somewhat fully: “If }mu have heard . . . that by a revelation was made known to me THE Secret . . . which was not made known, in former gener- ations, to the sons of men as it has now been revealed to his [God’s] consecrated apostles and teachers by [a communication from] the spirit, [namely], that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and a conjoint BODY [with other Christians] and joint partakers of His promise IN [relation to the sending of] Christ, by means of that glad-tidings whereof I became the minister. ... To me, one of the very least among all the consecrated, this favor was given that I should carry the glad- tidings to the Gentiles . . . and should enlighten all concerning the working of the Secret, which has been concealed since ages in [the mind of] God the Creator of all things, that now, through the [Christian] §VII.] CimONOLOGICAL NARKATIVE. A. D. C3-70. 249 written during his second imprisonment^®® his tone is that of disappointment, hut his illustration corroborates the idea that he had an imperkil j)ersonage among others in mind. He speaks of women perpetually learning, yet never attaining a recognition of the truth, and men who — as the Egyptian magicians had prevented their monarch from listening to Moses — prevented these from listening to Paul.190 assembly [which I have gathered] God’s diversified wisdom [opening a way to Gentiles as to Jews] might be made known to governments and authorities in heaven-high positions.” — Ephesians, 3, 2-10. 1^5 (luring liis first imprisonment must have written Ephesians, Colossians, Pliilippians, and Philemon. The epistle to Titus and the first one to Timothy were written during his liberation. The second one to Timothy was written after he hail been the second time brought to Koine. The phraseology of the letters to Timothy and Titus is so similar as to show that they were written at no great interval from each other. Paul’s epistles ought to be rean’anged in our English translations. The present arrangement consists in putting first those to societies and afterwards those to individuals ; the arrangement in each class bidng according to size, without regard to date. The epistle to the Hebrews, not by Paul, has been subjoined to his writings as doubtful. Probably Paul was liberated from his first imprisonment early in 64. He seems to have sailed for Asia Minor by the way of Crete, at which island he left Titus (Titus 1, 5). From Asia Minor he made a flying visit to Philippi in Macedonia (1 Tim. 1, 3; 3, 14, I.')). From there he must have returned to Asia Elinor and been seized within its bounds. He was brought to Rome by way of Miletus and Corinth, for he left Trophimus sick at the former jilace, and Erastus stopixid at the latter (2 Tim. 4, 20). He had intended spending the winter at Nicopolis (Titus 3, 12), and with this intention had left some manuscripts and a valise at Troas (2 Tim, 4, 13), through which place doubtless he expected to repass. 196 “Know this, that in the last da}'S times will be difficult. Men will be selfish, avaricious, . . . lovers of pleasure rather than of God ; having an outside appearance of practical-monotheism, but renouncing its [proper] working. Avoid such, for of this class are those who make their way into families and captivate weak women with accumulated faults, fluctuating under various desires, perpetually learning, but never able to reach a iiecoonition of the truth. After the saiae fashion that 11 * 250 JUDAISM AT KOME. [CH. VIII. Although the apostle probably had at Eome, as else- where, some trouble from Judaizing Christians, yet his chief difficulty, as portrayed in his later letters, seems to have been with unprincipled Jews, who had, as a con- venience to themselves, adopted his teaching, that the Mosaic law was not binding, but with this difference, that he had in view the ceremonial, and they the moral law. They probably knew enough to substitute ceremonial observances for morality in adapting themselves to the inclinations of the women whom they wished to influ- ence. Paul had come into collision with such Jews, nominal adherents of Chris tianity,^^’^ and one who, during Jannes and Jambres [the Egyptian magicians] withstood Moses, thus do these men withstand the truth, men corrupt in mind, spurious as regards the faith. But they shall make no further progress, for their sense- lessness shall be as thoroughly manifested to all as was that of those [magicians].” — 2 Tim. 3, l - 9. A catalogue of vices in these men is omitted, that attention may not be diverted from their having given a spurious adhesion to Christianity, and also from their having apparently stood between Paul and the throne, which Poppjea, for the time, practically occupied. 197 a Having ... a good conscience, by discarding which some have made shipwreck of the faith, of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered over to Satan [turned out of Christ’s assembly into that of Satan, or into heathenism] that they may be taught not to calumniate.” — 1 Tim. 1, 19, 20. ‘‘A pillar and basis of the truth and confessedly grand is the [little-recognized] Secret of practical- monotheism, . . . but the spirit expressly says that in the last times some will fall away from the faith [compare 2 Thes. 2, 3, quoted on p. 236], adhering to deceitful spirits and to teachings of demons [that is, of heathenized men], hypocritical falsifiers, cauterized in their own conscience, preventing marriage, teaching abstinence from meats. . . . Eenounce impure and old-womanish fables. Exercise yourself in practi- cal-monotheism. This asceticism is of little use. Practical-monotheism is useful in every way.” — 1 Tim. 3, 15; 4, 1-3, 7, 8. “Keep away from impure gossips, for they will make progress yet further into hea- thenism, and their teaching eats its way like a gangi’ene ; of whom are Hymenseus and Philetus, who as regards the truth have been a failure, saying that ‘ the resurrection is already past,’ and they upset the faitli of some. Yet God’s foundation stands firm, having [as evidence of authen- ticity] this seal, ‘ The Lord knows his own,’ and ‘ Let every one who calls §VII.] CIIHONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 63-70. 251 Paui’s trial, did him many ill turns, had the same name, and may have been the same person, as one of those with whom he had previously come into conhict.^^^ If Paul had been tlie'^only prominent Cliristian outside of Ptome who was brought thither, and if none had suffered elsewhere as Christians, we might attribute his second imprisonment to mere personal feeling, whether from Jews in the palace or in Asia,^^^ and might ha\ e regarded the persecution of other Christians at Pome as not implying, or connected with, any effort of Jews elsewhere to make Christians responsible for tlie anti- lioman feeling which was rapidly gaining strength. Ac- cording, however, to the concurrent testimony of early on the Lord’s name [that is, who professes to belong to him] abstain from wrong-doing.” — 2 Tim. 2, lG-10. Paul, at a former date (1 Cor. 7 , 8, 25 - 28 , 32 - 34 , 38 ), had expressed opinions concerning the inexpediency of marriage in view of impending troubles. His experience in Nero’s palace, or in the cit}" of Rome, would seem to have overruled his objections, as we maj’’ infer, not indeed from his indignation above expressed, at those who, dislionestly as he thought, opposed marriage, but from his statement 1 Tim. 5, ii, i !. 198 “Alexander the coppersmith has done me much injury (or, many ill turns) . . . against whom be you also on your guard, for he has exces- sively [or, vehemently] eontradicted my statements.” — 2 Tim. 4, 14 , 15 . 199 Paul writes to Timothy (2 Tim. 1, 1 . 5 ), “You know that all in Asia [the small province around Ephesus] have turned awa}^ from me.” He had just previously (2 Tim. 1, 10-12) spoken of Christ as having “ done away with death and brought life and incorruption to light through the glad-tidings, of which I was made a herald, apostle, and teacher among the Gentiles; on avuicit account also I suffer these things.” Shortly afterwards he says (2 Tim. 2, 8, 0): “Remember Jesus Christ, who has been raised from the dead, — a descendant of David, — according to my glad-tidings, in whom I suffer, even to bonds as an EVIL-DOER.” The last word makes it ])lain that Paul was charged with crime. The date of the accusation leaves little doubt that the crime charged was privity to setting the city on fn-e. His statement as to why he had been charged admits difference of interpretation. It alleges hatred either because of his mission to the Gentiles, or because of his advocating the resurrection, concerning which latter he had had trouble with Jews in the palace. Perhaps the Jews in Asia were promjited by one motive and those in the palace by a different one. 252 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. VIII. Christian writers, Peter was also during this persecution put to death at Eome,^^^ a man neither known nor likely to have been thought of there, unless sent as a prisoner from his own locality. The statement, moreover, of James the Less implies action by Jewish conservatives against Christians,^^^ and a remaining record of his own death implies that he fell somewhat later a victim to the same.^^^ A passage in the Sibylline Oracles treats the Christian sufferers of this date as Jews.^^^ This would be inher- Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. 2, 25. Origen, Comment, in Genes. Tom. 3 {Op27. 2, p. 24 B., edit, de la Rue; 0[ph 8, p. 48, edit. Lommatzsch). Orosius, 8, 7, p. 473. Sulpic. Severus, Hist. Sac. Lib. 2 , (in De la Bigiie, Bibliotheca, Vol. 7, cob. 269 B.) 201 Paul’s previous experience illustrates this. When he for the first time reached Rome he found (Acts 28, 21) that even the leading Jews had heard nothing concerning his difficulties in Judsea, though these had now lasted over two years. How much less likely were the Gentiles to have known concerning Peter ! 202 not the rich oppress you and drag you before tribunals ? Do they not calumniate the excellent name by which you are called?” — James 2, 7. 2^^ Hegesippus in his fifth book gave a narrative concerning the death of James, which Eusebius has copied into his Ecc. History, 4, 23, and which wdll be found in Routh, Reliquioc Sacrce, Vol. 1, pp. 208-212. It is disfigured by the weakness of its author, yet its two prominent points are not improbable. He states that the conservative Jews wished to make use of James, and, failing in this, put him to death. This took place probably more than a year after Nero^s persecution, during the twelvemonth when Judcca was handed over or relinquished by the Roman authorities to the Jewish aristocracy. 2^* The Sibylline writer says (5, 149, 150) of ISTero: — He seized the God-begotten temple and burnt [his fellow] citizens, The ^ Peoples,’ who went up into it, whom he had justly praised with hymns.” The full passage will be found in Note F, § II. No. 1, of the Appendix. Nero must have made Jewish praise the object of some musical effort or efforts. On the meaning of “ Peoples,” see Appendix, Note B, § I. No. 13. Alexandre substitutes, conjecturally, ‘‘temple” for “Peoples,” but Nero ceased to be emperor two years before the tem]:)le’s destruction. The seizure of the temple may refer to a temporary seizure at the beginning of the rebellion,- when the money in its treasury was taken away. §VII.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 63- 70. 25a ently probable if, as in the year 52, leading Jews were endeavoring to saddle on this portion of their countrymen the odium of any feeling against the liornaiis, which was likely otherwise to be attributed to their whole body. Tlie only sufferers known to us by name were Christian Jews. The reader should, in this connection, remember that there are constituent parts either in conservatism,^^^ or in any other general classification of mankind, and that the personal character and feelings of those in one constituent part may difier greatly from those in another. Among those Jews who regarded Christians as fanatics and as having caused expulsion — with its consequent loss and inconvenience — to their non-Christian brethren in A. D. 52, there were men who must have revolted with horror from the present treatment of Christians. Seneca and other distinguished liomans, almost imme- diately after the atrocities against Christians, were charged with conspiracy against Nero. Poppaea and Tigellinus were present with Nero when the order to Seneca for liis self-destruction was sent.^^® Poppa^a’s infiuence cannot at most have lasted much more than a rnontli afterwards, if we may judge by the date of Nero’s order transferring Ca3sarea from Jewish to Gentile control.^^" Although the Jewish rebellion did not extend outside I use the terms conservatism ” and conservatives,” for lack of better ones, to designate all who, from whatever motives, see with reluc- tance, or oppose with greater or less vehemence, decided changes in soci- ety. The terms include wealthy persons anxious for their property, and poorer persons anxious for their gains. They include those who adhere, either thoughtfully or from prejudice, or as a matter of personal feeling, to old views. They include those who rely more on steady growth than they do either on noisy excitements, or on ideas which profess to revo- lutionize ; those too who have less distrust of tliemselves and of others in dealing with well-known evils than in dealing with novel ones. They include some of the truest-hearted and some of the worst of men. Tacitus, Annals, 15, 61 . According to Josephus {JVars, 2, 14, 4 ), the order had already been put in execution at Ciesarea before the breaking out of the rebellion in the month of Artemisius. This month seems, in the Asiatic calendar, to have begun about the 24th of March ; see Smith, Did. of Antiq. p. 225. 254 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CII. VIII. of Jewish borders, 'yet the prevailing excitement chilled, or imbittered, everywhere the relations between Jews and Gentiles. This appears chiefly in the writings of Christians, they being composed of both pities. The statement of Paul has been quoted (p. 251 n.), that all — meaning doubtless all Jewish Cliristia\is — in [the prov- ince of] Asia had fallen away from him. A passage of the Apocalypse written during this rebellion tells tlie Christian assembly at Ephesus : “ You have tried those who call themselves apostles, but who are not, and you found them deceivers.” A prominent Gentile, on the other hand, seems to have eschewed association' even with an apostle of Jewish origin.^^^ Intensifled Jewish feeling makes itself visible in the disposition of Jewish Christians to forsake their new for their old faith and in a commendation by John of hos- Apocalypse, or Revelation, 2, 2. The ultra-Jewisli Christians at no time before or after Paul’s death used his writings. During his lifetime liis apostleship was denied by them, not merely in Judaea, but in churches which he himself had founded ; see 1 Cor. 9, 1, 2. The name Diotrephes, meaning “nurtured by Jupiter,” indicates that the bearer of it was of Gentile origin. The apostle John says to Gains ; “I wrote to the assembly, but Diotrephes, who likes pre-eminence over them, does not receive us. Therefore, if I come, I will put him in mind of his doings, spreading evil reports about us. And not conten-t with these things, he does not receive the brethren [the Jewish Chris- tians], and hinders and ejects from the assembly those who wish [to re- ceive them].” — 3 John, 9, 10. Diotrephes probably feared to lose civil or social standing by fraternizing with Jews. The praise given, in verse 12, to Demetrius, also of Gentile origin if we may judge from his name, was perhaps because his Gentile surroundings did not prevent kindliness towards his brethren of Jewish descent. 210 Epistle to the Hebrews, written apparently after the death of Peter (Heb. 13, 7) by some Alexandrine Christian, possibly by Apollos, when the persecution at Rome was subsiding and when Timothy had been set at liberty (Heb. 13, 23), has for one of its main objects to prevent Jewish Christians from failing back into their old faith. The same seems to be the object of John’s remark (1 John 2, 28), “Whoever denies the Son hath not the Father; he who confesses the Son hath the Father too.” Compare 1 John 2, 10 ; 4, 13; 5 , 1, 5, 10, 12 ; 2 John 9. §vn.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 63-70. 255 pitality towards Gentiles, which seems to imply that for the moment some were averse to practising This mutual alienation may well have prompted the reiterated admonitions of John to mutual love.^^'^ The present, like other reactionary periods, filled Eome with prosecutions for Unbelief.^^^ CHAPTEE IX. APOCALYPSE, OR BOOK OF CHRIST’S SECOND COMING. § I. Title and Authorship. During or immediately after the events narrated in the last section of tlie preceding chapter, a book called tlie '' Apocalypse]' that is, the ''Personal Appearing" or the "Manifestation" of Jesus Christ} was written by some 211 “You [Gains] are doing a true work in what you perform towards THE iHiETHUEN and towards the foueionehs, who in presence of the assembly liave borne witness to your kindness ; whom you do well to assist on their way in a manner worthy [a worshipper] of God. For on account of the name [of Christian] they came out, destitute, from among the Gentih;s. We ought, therefore, to accept such, that we may become fellow-workers [with them] in the truth.” — 3 John 5-8. In this and in the immediately following verses (9, 10), whicli have already been quoted, “brethren” seems to mean such travelling Christians as were Jews, and “foreigners” such as were Gentiles. The latter word, ^eVot, was used by Jews to designate Gentiles (Ephes. 2, 12, 10; Matt. 27, 7), and may have been retained sometimes by. those of them who became Christians. Its retention was most likely on the part of Christians who associated much with Jews. 2^2 See 1 John 2, o - il ; 3, 11, 14, 15, 23 ; 4, 7, 8, 20, 21 ; 2 John 5. Com- pare James 1, lo, 20. 213 “Vespasian . . . sent [letters] to Rome to wipe out any stigma from the living or dead, who under Nero and his successors [Galba, Otho, and Vitellius] had been condemned for Unbelief, and quashing all such accusations.” — Dio Cass. 66, o. 1 The common version “ Revelation of Jesus Christ,” in order that it 256 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. IX. Jewish Christian named John. It throws light both on the persecution by Jewish conservatives and on the in- tensity of anti-Eoman feeling among the ultra- Judaizing Christians, and seems to call for a special chapter. In the SECOND century, Justin and Irenaeus, semi- Jewish Christians, who could find their favorite doctrines of a Millennium and a New J erusalem nowhere in the Christian records save in this book, allege or assume unhesitatingly that it was written by the apostle J ohn. Other brethren in that century, less tinctured with Jewish views, attrib- ute it to a different author.^ This discrepance in the sec- ond century could scarcely have existed had the apostle been its writer. If any reliance can be placed on style, the work was not written by the same person as the gos- pel and epistles of John. If any reliance can be placed on views taught, it was not from that apostle who gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul, that he should go to the Gentiles.^ The book, aside from the passage already may correspond with the Greek, must be understood as meaning, not a revelation made by him, but a revealing of himself personally, as in 1 Cor. 1, 7 ; 2 Thes. 1, 7 ; 1 Pet. 1, 7, 13 ; 4, 13. Compare Luke 17, 30, and also the revealing (2 Thes. 2, 3, 6, 8) of the Lawless One. Dionysius of Alexandria, who flourished in the first half of the third century and who was born about its commencement, says : “ Some OF OUR PREDECESSORS rejected and totally discarded the book . . . they say that it is not from John. ... I will not deny that he [the writer] was called John, and that this writing is from a John, . . . yet I would not readily concede that he was the apostle. . . . But I think that he was some other John, [one] of those who lived in Asia, since they say that there are two monuments at Ephesus, and each is said to be John’s.” — Euseb. Ecc. Hist. 7, 25, Vol. 2, pp. 374, 376, 378, 379, edit. Heinichen. Cains, an earlier writer than Dionysius, is perhaps one of those alluded to, as he denied the apostolic authorship of the book. See Euseb. Ecc. Hist. 3, 28. ^ “James, Cephas, and John . . . gave to me and Barnabas their right hands in fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles.” — Galat. 2, 0. This agrees with the views of John, as stated in his gospel (1, 12, 13), that the Logos gave “the right of becoming God’s children to those . . . who were born not of [particular] races, [or, more literally, ‘ bloods ’] . . . but of God.” It agrees also with his commendation of Gains, be- APOCALYPSE. 257 quoted, which bears strong appearance of condemning Paul,^ is obviously Jewisli in its teachings, and its man- ifestation of feeling towards Home is fearful. Attention to the geographical field of Paul’s labors corroborates the view that a native, or lifelong inhabi- tant, of western Asia Minor wrote the book. Asia Minor was subdivided into smaller districts. One of these, called “Asia,” lay in a semicircle around Ephesus, extending, ap[)roximately, for a hundred niiles.^ Paul, in his earlier missionary journeys, traversed tlie adjoining countries, but made no effort in this section,® whence we may infer that Jewish feeling there, as in Judaea, barred the way for ]iis teachings. Afterwards he made an effort in Ephesus, but was obliged to form, in the school of a Gentile, an organization which must have been separate from that of more Jewish Christians.’^ Somewhat later, he writes: “I shall remain in Ephesus until Pentecost, for a great and practicable doorway is open, althougli tliere are many opponents.”® After the fire in Pome, his statement, “You know that all in Asia liave turned away from me,”^ refers. cause of his hospitality to Gentiles, as quoted in note 211 of the preceding chapter. ' The fact that the apostle John was one of the three who sustained more intimate relations than other disciples with Jesus is additional evidence of his enlarged views. This and the direct testimon)^ of Paul seem to have been overlooked by those who attribute the Apocal}q)se to the apos- tle, but the gospel to a different John, ^ See llev. 2, 2, quoted on p. 254. ^ Asia, according to the above limitation, had been bequeathed to the Ivomans by Attains, in n. c. 133 (Smith, Diet, of Gcog. Vol. 1, p. 238, col. 2). Tlie Romans, when appointing a governor, included neighbor- ing provinces under the term “Asia,” but the inhabitants of Asia Elinor seem to have retained the name as a designation for the original fragment of territory. See Acts of the Apostles 2, \\ 10; 16, n, 7 ; Rev. 1, 4 ; and compare Acts 19, 10, 22, 2G. ® Acts 16, 1, 0. ”• Acts 19, 0 ; compare remarks on p. 240. ^ 1 Cor. 16, 8 , 0. Some doings of these opponents may be seen in Acts 21, 27 , and their influence in 2 Tim. 1, 15 . ^ 2 Tim. 1, 15 . Timothy, to whom this was addressed, would know its meaning. He knew that prevalent feeling in Asia might excite Jews Q 258 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. IX. doubtless, to such Christians of Jewish proclivities, in this section of Asia Minor, as had formerly adhered to him. If Ave now turn to the Apocalypse we find it addressed to seven churches in this most Judaizing fraction of Asia Minor, all of them within eighty miles of Ephesus. The field of Paul’s labors is totally ignored, except in the ad- dress to the Ephesians, Avhich may well have been sym- j)athy for their rejection of him. Not only this, but the churclies of Judma and Syria are ignored. The apostle John had, prior to the date of this book, labored almost exclusively in Judma or its neighborhood. Had he origi- nated the book, lie could not have overlooked the field of his own labors, and forborne a word of counsel to it. Only by supposing that the writer was a Judaizing Chris- tian, native of, or long resident in, this little precinct of Asia Minor, can we naturally account for his ignoring the remainder of the Christian world. The objections against deeming the book a work of John the apostle weigh with still greater force against the supposition that it is a com- munication from Jesus. § II. Date, The book was written under the sixth Eoman emperor,^^ which, as the writer lived in Asia, must mean Vespasian. This accords with the mention of a seventh, — Titus, doubtless, — who was yet to come.^^ It alludes to Nero’s death, and seems to imply destruction of the temple.^^^ and tlieir sympathizers against Paul, but this would have made Chris- tians of Gentile proclivities defend him. Paul’s admonitions to Timothy (2 Tim. 4, 1, 2) imply that his views still found hearers. These must have been mainly Gentiles. Pev. 17 , 10. Compare Appendix, Note E. Titus had (see p. 272, note 5) been proclaimed emperor against his father, and had put on a croivn, but gave up perhaps such claim for (see p. 271, note 4) a share in, or future promise of, the empire. 12 Rev. 17 , 11. 12a Titus as coming emperor may imply that the temple was already destroyed. The new Jerusalem (Rev. 21 , 22) is without temple. APOCALYPSE. 259 § ni.] It must, therefore, have been completed after A. D. 68, and probably in, or soon after, A. D. 70. The first half of the book, concerning persecution of Christians by conserva- tive Jews, may have been composed even earlier by a year or two. § III. Divisions and Object. The book, aside from some introductory and concluding remarks ( 1 , 1-8; 22 , 6- 2i), contains : 1. Admonitions to endurance and steadfastness ; 2. A figurative explanation of how Jewish opposition was to be subdued ; 3. A figu- rative explanation of how heathen opposition was to be subdued and punished. The first of these includes from chapter 1 , 9 , to the end of chapter 3 ; the second, chapters 4 to 11 ; and the third, from chapter 12 to 22 , 5. In order to appreciate tlie author’s object we must recollect that not only among heathens, but also among Jews and Christians, an erroneous belief prevailed tliat divine favorites niiglit expect divine interposition in their behalf. The Jews looked for it at tlieir Messiah’s coming. The Christians, not having experienced it, sup])osed that it was deferred until a second coming of their Master. Some Jews or Christians had, apparently, begun to lose patience, and irreverently to ask, “ Where is his prom- ised coming, for, since the fathers fell asleep, all things remain in the same condition as since the creation.” To meet this state of feeling the writer repeats and re- iterates the statement that the coming would be quickly,^^ and, to emphasize this assertion, an angel, of such gigan- tic proportions that he stands with one foot on the land and the other on tlie sea, is represented as lifting his hand to lieaven and taking an oath by the Supreme Being, and by the heaven, tlie earth, the sea, and everything in them, that when a trumpet — briefly delayed — should sound, there should no longer be any delay, but God’s secret purpose should be accomplished according to tlie glad announcement which he had made to the prophets.^^ 13 2 Peter, 3, 4. 1^ “I am coming quickly.” — 2, 16; 3, 11; 22, 7, 12, 20. ‘‘The time is near.” — 22 , 10. 1® Rev. 10, 5-7. The passage imitates Daniel 12, 7. 260 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. IX. § IV. Phraseology and Illustrations. The phraseology of the book is largely borrowed from the Old Testament. Two passages are placed in the note as an example.^® In some instances a recurrence to the Old Testament becomes requisite before the origin of a hgure can be discerned. Thus, in Daniel 7, 9 , the Deity is styled the Ancient of Days/' and in accordance with this conception is represented as having hair perfectly white. The parallel passage, Eev. 1 , 14 , uses the descrip- tion for the Son of Man. Compare, in the Appendix, Note D, foot-note 8. The habiliments of a heavenly personage are copied “Beiug turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; and in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow ; and his eyes were as a flame of fire ; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars ; and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword ; and his counte- nance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead, and he laid his right hand on me saying. Fear not.” — Rev. 1, 12-17. “There was a great earthquake; and the snn became black as sack- cloth, and tlie moon became as blood ; and the stars of the heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig-tree “I said, behold a candlestick all of gold, . . . and his seven lamps thereon.” — Zech. 4, 2. “ I saw . . . one like the Son of man.” — Dan. 7, 13. “ Behold a certain man clothed in linen, . . . girded with fine gold of Uphaz.” — Dan. 10, 5. “The Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow and the hair of his head like the pure wool.” — Dan. 7, 0. ‘ ‘ And his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in color to polished brass.” — Dan. 10 , 6 . “ He made my mouth like a sharp sword.” — Is. 49, 2. “His voice was like a noise of many waters.” — Ezek. 43, 2. “ And he said unto me, ... Fear not, Daniel. ” — Dan. 10, 11, 12. “There shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel . . . and the mountains shall be thrown down.” — Ezek. 38, 19, 20. “The earth shall quake before APOCALYPSE. 261 § V.] apparently from those of the high-priest.^"^ The period, more than once mentioned, of three years and a half, is based on a similar expression in Daniel.^^ § V. Outline of the Booh. John represents that he was in the isle of Patnios, because of his Christianity ; meaning, apparently, either casteth her untimely figs, when she them [an army of locusts], the is shaken by a mighty wind. And heaven shall tremble, the sun and the heaven departed as a scroll when moon shall be dark, and the stars it is rolled together; and every shall withdraw their shining.” — mountain and island were moved Joel 2, 10; cp. 3, 15. out of their places.” — Rev. 6, “The sun shall be turned into 12-14. darkness and the moon into blood.” — Joel 2, 31 . “ The stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light, the sun shall be dark- ened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.” — Is. 13, lo. “The heavens shall be rolled to- gether as a scroll, and all their host shall fall down as the leaf falleth from the vine and as a falling fig from the fig-tree.” — Is. 34, 4. Compare Josephus, Antiq, 3, 7, 4, with Daniel, 10, 5, and Rev. 1, 13. In later times the Catholics represented the Deity in the Pope’s habili- ments and tiara ; see in Iconographie Chrctienne b}^ Didron, the Histoire dc Dicu, p. 224, where a copy of the representation is given. 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, 6, 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.''^^ The tenor of the book requires us to understand by this the day of the Lord’s coining.^^ 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.^^ 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 KvpiaKy, Day of the Lord, death having been conquered.” — Origen, in Joan. 10, 20; 0pp. 4, p. 197, B, edit, de la Rue; 1, p. 345, edit. Lommatzsch. ‘-^1 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, yet 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, 0, lO). 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; 3, 14), — it is probable enough that his society shared the disfavor into which he had himself fallen. AVhether they fraternized in a culpable manner with the heathens, or whether the}^ 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 APOCALYPSE. 263 § V.] After the admonitions, John represents himself as sum- moned to heaven (ch. 4 ), and that lie spiritually went there.^^ At the riglit hand of the Supreme Being was a hook (cli. 5), the book, as it would seem, of tlie Divine pmposes. No one in heaven, nor on the earth, nor un- der the eartli, save Jesus, proved worthy to open this ))ook.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, lamine, and some of them as eating idol sacrifices. In this respect they are said to resemble the Nicolaitans (Kev. 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. 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 eyes in every direc- tion — and in Ezekiel with wheels — that they need not even turn around before starting on their errands ; see Ezekiel 1, 1*2. Jesus is designated by two opposite figures, as “the lamb that was slaughtered” (5, o) and as “the lion of the tribe of Judah” (5, 5 ). 264 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. IX. pestilence, or destruction generally, for liis enemies.^^ The lifth seal displays the martyrs clamorous for vengeance, who are told to wait yet a little. The sixth unfolds con- vulsions of nature before wliich mortals hide themselves in terror, and when — after security provided (ch. 7) for the Jewish saints — 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 vdiolly, those recorded as inflicted on the Egyptians.^® There is, however, a noteworthy difference 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. Those who are guarded by a seal against harm are twelve thousand from each of the twelve original tribes of Israel. 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 down (cli. 11 , 13), and the rest is converted. But in dealing with heathenism an angel casts a millstone into the sea (ch. 18 , 2i), exclaim- ing, Babylon (the title given by the book to Kome) 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.^" She gives birth to the Messiah. Heathenism, identified with Satan, is represented as a serpent eager to devour the cliild. The latter is caught up to God, and the woman seeks refuge in the wilderness. The serpent pours after 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. JUDAISM AT ROME. 266 [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 Eoman power. The rising of the beast from the sea, and some of the language concerning it, is bor- rowed from Daniel.^® This first-portrayed beast (ch. 13, 1 - 10) is the Eoman power. One of its heads, Nero, is rep- resented as slaughtered, but the deadly wound is healed.^^ 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 Eome’s power, and probably represents Gentile Chris- tianity, by which must be understood not merely Pauls 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.^^ Its inculcation of obedience to Eome (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 19, 11-17), 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. Cp. note 209 of Ch. VIII. “ 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 , lO) as the false prophet, or teacher. This view of Gentile Christianity by the writer should be compared with two paragraphs of Ch. VI 1 1, 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. APOCALYPSE. 267 § V.] miracles which it is permitted to perform in the presence of the [first] beast,” that is, in the presence of heatiienism. The chief beast is designated by a number, of wliicli a probable explanation is one of those given in the note.^^ A subsequent passage, where this beast is mentioned conjointly with the woman in purple and scarlet, or the city of Eome,^2 leaves no doubt that it designates the Latin power.^ The shorter of the annexed explana- A 30 *H 8 tions is mentioned already in the second a 1 century by Irenseus, Cont. Ilceres. 5, 30, .1. T 300 /5 2 The longer of the two originally appeared, € 5 a 1 so far as I know, in the Westminster Re- L 10 (T 200 view for October, 1861, Vol. 76, p. 261, V 50 L 10 Am. edit. 0 70 \ 30 The shorter means “Latin”; the longer s 200 € 5 means “The Latin kingdom.” The num- 666 f L 10 bers affixed to each letter are those for a 1 which they are commonly used in Greek enumeration. It will be noticed that in the longer A 30 explanation the word “Latin” is spelled a 1 without an e. T 300 The statement that the number is 1 10 [also ?] the number of a man may imply V 50 that the name of some offensive Roman V 8 official in the in’ovince footed up 666. 666 32 The connection of ideas which prompted the presentation of Pvome 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 }>art 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. 33 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-li), and the punishments denounced are treated (verse 12 ) as cause for endurance on the part of the consecrated. Aside from other calamities, wdiich were to destroy Eome, the kings whom she had subjugated are repre- sented in one passage as eager for her destruction,^^ though in another they are represented as weeping over her.^^ 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 Eome and avenged to the uttermost the blood of his bondsmen. After the triumph over Eome comes the millennium. The beast and false prophet are thrown into a lake of fire.^® Satan is bound for a thousand years.^^ The mar- tyrs, alone apparently, are brought to life and reign with Christ during this period.^ 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.^ The remainder of mankind are then brought to life and judged.^^ 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.^^ The denunciations, with which the book closes, against Rev. 17 , 12, 16, 17. 38 Qh. 20 , 4, 5. 33 Ch. 18 , 9. 39 Ch. 20 , 10. 33 Ch. 19 , 20. 40 Ch. 20 , 5, 13. 37 Ch. 20 , 2, 3. 44 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 ^Ive the apparent discrepance. APOCALYPSE. 269 § V.] any one who should add to, or take away from, its state- ments, were not so peculiar in that age as they seem now.^2 The book, though often treated as a revelation made by Jesus, presents to the student, whether of opinions, or of Cliristianity, serious and painful contrasts to the jMaster 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 liis murderers. The Among fi’agments of Irenraus is the following: “I adjure you, copyist of this book, hy the Lord Jesus Christ and hy 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 hy this exemplar whence you transcribe ; and that you likewise transcribe this adjuration and place it in your copy.” — Ireneeus, Ojip. 1, p. 821, edit. Stieren, or p. 339, edit. Massuet. Eusebius ado])ts the above and prefixes it to his Chronicon ; see Jerome’s translation thereof in his Works, Vol. 8 , col. 9, 10, edit. Vallarsius. lie also, in his Ecclesiastical History^ 5, 20, copies and commends it. The following is from Kufinus, a writer at the close of the fourth century: ‘*1, 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 futui-e 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 w^ords] ; 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 wmrds], should occasion gi’eater obscu- rity to readers.” — Prologue of Rufinus to the De 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 w^as owung to the fact that many manuscripts were written without separation of \vords, 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 EOME. [cn. X. present work inculcates a spirit of revenge, not merely in a casual passage, but repeatedly and without its force being broken by a lesson of forgiveness or forbearance, however it may be palliated by Koman crime. Jesus, according to the Gospels, foretold the overthrow of Jerusalem, but neither her subsequent splendor nor Eome’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.^^ This- book represents the true worshippers as congregated in Jerusalem, while the vile and worthless dwell outside.^^ CHAPTEE X. CHRONOLOGICAL. NARRATIVE, A. D. 70 - 138. § I. .A. i). 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 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, 6), 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. Gospel of John 4, 21. 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.^ 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.*^ 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.^ 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.^ 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 ^lucianus, dropping the grudge arising from a jealousy of which he had hitherto made no secret, promised to join him with the Syrian army.” — Suetonius, Vespas. 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.” — Taci- tus, Hist. 2, r>, Bohn’s trans. ^ The expulsion of Stoics, probably in a. d. 71, mentioned in Ch. III. note 45, is attributed by its narrator to ^lucianus. The death of Helvid- ius Priscus (Sueton. Vcspas. 15) must have been conceded by, rather than acceptable to, Vespasian, though Helvidius was (Dio Cass. 66, 12), equally as his father-in-law, Thrasea Paitus, 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. * “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. TituSy 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.^ 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 tlie patrician wing of the coalition, lest association with Ju- daism might aflbrd 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.® The beating of one Stoic (or Cynic) and decap- itation of another may have found Titus in a mood to sympathize with it.*^ ^ “The soldiers . . . saluted him by the title of Emperor; aud 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 goveunment df 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, . . . ‘ I am come, father, I am come.’ ” — Sueton, Titus, 5, Bohn’s trans. He had in fact (Oros. 7, 9, cited in Indirect Testimony, p. 79) permitted himself to be proclaimed emperor against his lather, prompted probably by patrician officers. ® “ 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, is, 19. Bcrenicen statim ah urhe 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 |)ublic 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 ofv the Romans at these things, sent her away.” " After expulsion of the Stoics some of the more dogged and cynical §1.] 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 Judaicus, the Jewish.® 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 learning^ 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 Caenis.^^ 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 off.” — 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. ® “Both took the title of emperor, but neither received the title of Jewish.” — Dio Cass. 66, 7. ® “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, jit 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. “He enjoyed a good state of health, though he used no other means 12* R 274 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. eigii war agreed with popular rather than with patrician ideas.^^ The addition or substitution of new members in the Senate 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,^^ 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.^^ 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.^^ Subsequently to this eruption a large fire oc- to preserve it than repeated friction, . . . besides fasting one day in every month.” — Sueton. Vespas. 20, Bohn’s trans. Caenis, his wife, was a freed woman of Antonia, concerning whom see Appendix, Note G, foot- note 56. 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, ir>. Compare Ch. V. § II. Tac. A71. 3 , 55, quoted in Ch. V. note 47. Sueton. TituSf 2. “The divine Titus with his great mind made provision for our security and revenge, ... on which account we [senators] made him a god.” — Tliny, Pa7iegyr. 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 {IbicL)j that Titus “did not attend to charges of unbelief.” “Many and enormous men, exceeding human stature, such as the §11.] CmiONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 81-96. 275 ciirred at Eome and also a pestilence^® One means adopted for checking the latter ignored modern sanitary regulations, and may have increased tlie pestilence hy communicating to public places the odors of a slaughter- house. § II. A. D. 81-96. Domitian. Expulsion of Monotheism. Domitian, besides being an adept in some pliysical ex- ercises,^^ was a man of more ability and scholarship than giants are depicted, hecame 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. . . . Tlien 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 ])art 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, Jim., Epist. 6 , 20, 17. 16 “qqiere happened in his reign some dreadful accidents; an eniption of Mount Vesuvius, in Campania, and a fire in Rome, which continued during three days and three nights ; besides a plague, such as was scarce! ever known before. . . . For the relief of the people during the plague, he employed, in the w\ay of sacrifices and remedies, all means both divine and human.” — Suetonius, Titus, 8, Bohn’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 vdcinity.” — Dio Cass. 66, 23, 24. “ 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 np scholarly pursuits for his new duties, devoting himself to these latter with laborious attention and thoughtfulness.^^ 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.^^ 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. 19, Bohn’s trans. “Care for the world has turned Gerraanicus 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 sid- ences. . . . He perused nothing but the Commentaries and Acts of Ti- berius Csesar, . . . 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.” — Suetoii. Domit. 8, Bohu’s trans. 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 § 11 .] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 81-96. 277 when they favored liis political enemies, and forbore to avail himself of them in some cases where they would have served his private interest,^^ He can have had no be- lief in heathen deities,^^ 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.^^ 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 w^as 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, Bohn’s trans. “ 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, Bohn’s trans. “ Such portions of land as had been left when it was divided amongst the veteran soldiers, he grant(*d to the ancient possessors, as belonging to them by prescription.” — Sue- ton. 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 . “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. 2^ Domitiali “ especially honored Minerva. ” — Dio Cass. 67, l. 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 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.*^^ Near the close of his reign the word “ Lord” in address- ing him is said to have been common. This admits easy explanation.^® 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,^' and if “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. 20, Bohn’s trans. 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. 21, Bohn’s trans. “ In the beginning of his reign, he used to spend daily an hour by himself in private.” — Sueton. 3, Bohn’s trans. The statement by Suetonius that he occupied himself during this hour “catching flies,” is a mere absurdity. In Greek the word Kijpios 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 he apt to use, and others might copy in Latin, their accustomed form of ad- dress. Domitian “ thought himself the same as the gods [whom we had made ?],” — Pliny, Ju 7 i. 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 Casa. 67, 13. “With equal arrogance, when he dictated the form of a letter to be used by his procurators, he began it thus : ‘ Our §il] 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 Domitian’s reign must have endangered, if they did not destroy, life. They must also have been expensive, even to wastefulness. In tliis respect lie 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,^® 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 Dome, that is, by expelling monotheists,^^ Stoics, and other allies of the Lord and God commands so and so.’” — Sueton. Domit. 13, Bohn’s trans. Political misrepresentation was so incessant and unscrupulous, that tlie phraseology of any such letter should not be attributed without question to Domitian. Popular politicians may, Avhen 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 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 oi’der 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. Taeitus tells us (Agric. 45) that Agricola died [August 23, A. D. 93] while his kindred and friends were yet safe ; while Cams, the prosecutor, had as yet gained but one victory. “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.^^ 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.^^ 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. . . . Nevertheles.s, he suddenly put him to death upon some very slight suspicion, almost before he was well out of his consul- ship.” — Sueton. Domit. 15, Bohn’s trans. 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. 5. 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 Domitiaii was in Eome, August 23, A. D. 93, and surmise tliat his latest war did not begin before A. I). 94 or 95, during much of which latter year he must liave been absent from Koine. I suppose that the senato- rial party during his absence planned a rebellion, and by enforcing the Jewish tax in a most odious manner,^'^ com- pelled Jews, with not a few of their converts, to leave Koine ; 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 monotlieist or Christian.^ 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, Oral, 13, Vol. 1, \\ 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. ^ The [poll] tax on Jews was, to a greater extent than other taxes, 'exacted with the most unsparing severity (or bitterness, acerhissimc). Persons w^ere 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 tlieir race. I remember having been present, while yet a youtli, when an old man of ninety years was inspected by a procurator in a crowded court, consilio^ to discover whether Jie were circumcised.” — Sueton. Domit. 12. ^ See Dio Chrysostom, quoted in note 31. A patrician writer who was ill 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. Paiiegyr. 48, 8 . 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. Pamgyr. 54, l. 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 ROME. [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.^ 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.^^ 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, wlien 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. “Neither did flight and havoc follow your salutations [on arrival, O Trajan].” — Pliny, Jun., Panegyr. 48, .3. This seems to imply that Domitian’s salutations on returning from the war were immediately fol- lowed by proceedings against the conspirators. ^ 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 ; flattery of Trajan, that he might be swayed towards patricianism. The Panegyric (11, l) represents Tibei ius 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, NoteG, 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 . §11.] 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.^® In the former probably the proportion of patricianism to phi- losophy was as a hundred to one.^"^ Plutarch, though he Epictetus was a freediiian of Epaphroditus, whose case can be better understood after a few words concerning the latter. Epaphroditus had been alihellis, secretary, or librarian, or master of requests, for Nero, and subsequently for Domitian. (Sueton. Nero^ 49 ; Vomit. 14.) The con- spirators had perhaps bought him over, for he was banished. Subse- quently he was jmt to death, though whether by Domitian, or after that eini^ror’s death by persons anxious to get rid of his testimony, may admit question. Epictetus, the freedman 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 somewliat dogged character, and his admiration of Helvidius (Epictet. Vissertat. 1, 2, 19--22; 4, 1, 12:5; Higginson’s translat. pp. 9, 10, 308), might easily cause suspicion, though I am unaware of any distinct statement that he was banished. 37 “When Arulenus Rusticus published the praises of Pa3tus 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, yfr/?'?c. 2, Bohn’s trans. According to Dio Cassius, Domitian “put to death Rusticus Arulenus because [?] he philosophized, and because iiE called 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 Prlscus. 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 ” maj’^ 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 Artemidorus. 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 jmJchcrrwius causis [to aid con- spiracy?], and this “when certain great and wealthy friends hesitated to do so.” — Pliny, Epist. 3, ii. This visit was at the date quum essent philosophi ah urhc suhmoti, “when [the ?] philosophers were driven from JUDAISM AT ROME. 284 . [CH. X. numbered Eusticus among liis hearers, seems not to have been molested. The subjoined passages of Tacitus and Pliny may aid in fixing the date and character of f)roceedings by liomi- tian or others against senators.^^ Elsewhere we can find the views and temper of the parties.^^ The popular the city.” — Ibid. On their number see note 38. Artemidorns was a son-in-law of the Musonius mentioned in Ch. III. notes 45 and 75. The Helvidius Priscus mentioned above, and his father-in-law Thraaea Pffitus, 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 ■waitings 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 . ^ Pliny {E^nst. 3, 11), speaking of his visit to Artemidorns, says that at that date three of his personal friends, Senecio, Eusticus, 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 ]dace, 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: “ Agiicola 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 w^re tortured with the spectacle of Mauricus and Eus- 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 wdth the po}>- ' ular party, then, but not otherwise, is it comprehensible that the only friends of Pliny should have been those subsequently put to death. Pliny affirms iPanegyr. 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 -S6. 285 party had during Domitian’s reign gained one victory for hurnanity.^^ If they were, as alleged by Suetonius, indif- ferent to his death, they had probably been disappointed in other matters.^^ The sacrifices to iJomitian were prob- of the age tJian what liappened [tliat we] looked down at the prosecutors, their faces on tlie ground and their necks twdsting. 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 beating 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, i. 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 liis titles everywhere, and abolish all memory of him.” — Sueton. Domit. 23, Bohn’s trans, “ It was a delight to beat on the ground the })roud 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 lastl}^ the savage and dreaded images cast down ai>d melted in the flames.” — Pliny, Panegyr. 52, 4, 5. Compare note 27. Domitian forbade the making of eunuchs. See Sueton. PJnmdt. 7. “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 read}^ 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. Domit. 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 Proceedings against the Vestals will be hereafter mentioned. § III. 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.^^ One of his first acts was to recall monotheists.^^ 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.^^ 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 Pliny mentions the streets {Panegyr, 52, 7) as blocked by victims. Streets were very narrow, and Pliny’s language perhaps extravagant. See note 31. “ 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. 68, 1. 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 FIPvST CENTURY. 287 that period, scarcely a lifetime, Eome’s senatorial families liad 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.^® 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.^" 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,^® a relative of Plutarch, one Compare notes 18, 19. 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. This document, entitled Oraculorum DefcctUy' 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, 0pp. 7, p. 628, edit. Reiske) makes a speaker address him as Lamprias, and states (c. 38, Plutarch, 0pp. 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, 0})p. 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, 0pp. 7, pp. 711, 714. Plutarch had a grandfather, a brother, and, according to Suidas, a sou 283 JUDAISM AT KOME. [CH. X. speaker, Cleombrotus, takes ground that the oracles pro- ceeded from perishable and evdl beings, half-way between divine and human, called demons.^^ 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.^^ named Lamprias. In determining wliich was author of tlie work, it de- serves note that he speaks of himself (47, 0pp. 7, p. 715) as yet a young man, tliough not so young but that (38, 0pp. 7, p. b97) he had al- ready discussed the same question in public. F urther, 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 inentioned at the close of foot- note 51. The work, therefore, is probably by his brother or son. In Smith’s Diet, of Biog. 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. “ 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, 0pp. 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, 0pp. 7, pp. 642, 643. 50 “ 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.] rOSITION 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.^^ 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 w^e 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 liave a nature [or substance, ova-iap] which is imperishable, and a charac- ter [or natural endowment, d/oer77i'] incapable of suffering or sin.” — De Defect. Orac. 16 ; Plutarch, 0]7p. 7, pp. 648, 649. According to Cleombrotus, one of his fellow-citizens named Epi- therses had a son named iEmilianus, a rhetorician, whom some of those present at the colloquy had heard. This iEmilianus 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 decea.sed 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, 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 JUDAISM AT ROME. 290 [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 .^2 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,^ 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.^ 4. Anotlier item connected with monotheistic progress w^as the extra effort needed to keep up a belief in omens. 52 See pp. 157, 158. ^ 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. ... 1 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 (dO^wv) 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, Op}). 7, pp. 626, 627. ^ 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 fete and foreknowledge of Jupiter, and that he should in part oversee and direct” ? — De Defect. Orac. 29 ; Plutarch, 0pp. 7, pp. 678, 679. On the term “ Father,” see pp. 52, 53. 291 §iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 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.^ 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 liad made less progress, Cicero, though a conservative, could, during popular ascendency, ridicule attention to omens but, at the present period, we find Tacitus and Suetonius carefully incorporating a record of tliem into their works. Tacitus places them under the respective years in his Annals. Suetonius places them at the beginning and end of his biographie.s. 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, been cliieily fostered in times of aristocratic ascendency Compare pp. 37 - 40. Among us, omens on the left are deemed favorable; among Greeks and barbarians, those on the right. . . . \Ve established the left hand, they the right, because in most cases it had ap})eared 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 tlie same events] are different.” — Cicero, I>e Divinat. 2 (39), 82, S3. The obrn 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. 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, 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.^^ Conservatives had created a partisan ^ Augustus, though he had a degrading fondness (see Suetonius, Au- gicsius, 45) for witnessing even the fisticuffs of street rowdies, yet (see Suetonius, Augustii^y 44) forlwle 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 , ] 5 ), 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 bigotiy 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 l)een 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 , g), “Repay her as she repaid others; yes, give her twice twofold of her own doings.” AVhat, too, must have been the industi’ial state of a community which could absent itself from labor during one third of a year at these butcheries ! The younger Pliny writes that he had l)een 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 Rufmus, an excellent man, a friend of ours, took care during his duumvirate to do away and abolish it. His authority as a ])ublic 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 Roman and A GOOD citizen. When the opinions of each in rotation were asked, §IV.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 293 feeling in favor of these brutalities, by which the better members of their own liody were silenced. Nerva’s pro- hibition of them may have pleased more than the mono- theists and their friends.^^ 6. On the subject of social gatherings and suppers, the reader should weigh well the testimony of Idiny in Ch. II. note 25, and in the extract below,^^ concerning JuniUvS Mauricus, than whom nothing i.s more firm or truthful, said that ‘the contest ought not to be restored to the Viennese.’ He added, ‘I wi.sh 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 Vienne.se are confined to themselve.s. Ours spread [in every direction] widely.” — Pliny, Jun. EpisL 4 , 22. It is apparent that Rufmus must have been an iude]iendent 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 rea.soning or un-aristocratic leanings? He spoke “deliberately and gravely.” Did monothei.sts 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 le.st Mauricus .should, becau.se 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, attriluiting to that emperor undue leniency towards enemies of the Senate. Pliny himself, as we .shall find in the cour.se 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 art of the city.’ If I do nothing, not wishing any one to grumble, nor [on my part] to (piarrel 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 re])roach. What, therefore, do you wish me to do? For I will do what you say.” — Dio Clirys. Oral. 47, r, 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. “ 1 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, Nica?a, and Ciesarea, men well born and a(p68pa "EWrjvaSj 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. 7® “So far as concerns the sepulchres and the sacred structures, it will 302 JUDAISM AT DOME. [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 breacli, 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."^^ 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 Flavius 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 303 § IV.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. Dio’s accounts with the public were of course to be duly examined, but that the statue w^as a matter about whicli Pliny ought not to have written him."^ 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, wdien 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; wdien, 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 ciiAPtGE WITH RESPECT TO THE SEPULCHRES. Ai'cliippus, however, for whom Eumolpus w’as counsel here, at Prusa, undertook to present an accusation upon tills liead in writing. But neither Eumolpus nor Archipjms (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. ‘^As you well 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 w’as 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 Oroiion, 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 whicli 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 tliere must have favored Dio. His opponents must have wished to withdraw the trial from any such influence. This im- plies, however, 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 would by no means give anV 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, Jitn. 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 FIIIST CENTURY. 305 The facility witli which Pliny permitted himself to he diverted I'rom a simple business matter, by alleged danger to religion, may aid our understanding of otlier events in his ])roconsulship, which we shall hereafter consider. 10. Pj.UTARCii, the next on our list, stood one remove further than iJio 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, sliows an approval of simplicity in- dress as practised by her. His “Table Conversations” show that he aimed at something better than ordinary heathen cus- toms. Yet he seems inclined to expose error rather than EAPNESTLY to advocate moral trutli. He was willing to ridicule the Jcws^^ and to dwell on Stoic inconsistencies.^^ As the Stoics were the only body of hcatliens who as a CLASS laid stress on morality, it arrests attention that a moralist should only find fault witli tliem. Plutarch’s tract on Superstition opens to us his state of riiitarcli, Consolatio oxl Uxorem^ 4 ; Oj)}!. 8 , p. 402, edit. Roiske. The fourth hook of Plutarch’s Table Conversations is imperfect, breaking off ap]'»arcntly in the course of the fifth Conversation. The extant jiortion of this Conversation discusses the question vdij’- 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 op]iosite 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, 0pp. 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 moralit}' as calling, in the main, for more acceptance than it received. 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.^^ 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,^^ and, in so doing, places ‘‘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 tliey 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 ; 0pp. 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 verj^ things which give hope to others in their utmost dread. [Xo 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; Optp. 6, pp. 635, 636. “Others contend with misfortune, . . . but the superstitious man, saying to himself without prompting from any one, ‘You suffer these things, O ill-starred man, through providence and the command of divine power,’ throws away all hope.” — De Superstit. 7 ; Op2o. 6, p. 644. ^ “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 Suiierstit. 2, 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 diJLLfjL7]T0Vy 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; 0pp. 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; 0pp. 6 , pp. 647, 648. “ It is a matter of wonder to me that those who call atheism dcre^eLav 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 ; Oj^p. 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 KOME. [CH. X. in Europe influenced the less bigoted heathens.^^ It may be doubted, however, whether, in Plutarch’s religious sys- tem, the ideas of responsibility to divine power and of cpiiet 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,®^ 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 had won for Dio the epithet of Unbeliever, or Monotheist.®^ stition. But the superstitious man, who would prefer to he 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.” — De Suioerstit. 10, 11; Op'p. 6 , pp. 652, 653. On the term, “Father Jupiter,” in heathen writings, see remarks on page 52. 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. ^ See Appendix, Note A, foot-note 62. See Appendix, Note A, foot-note 63. § IV.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 309 riutarcli 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 otlier, and their being wounded by men and their variances and hatreds [(piote] : — ‘ You can devise a better tale than this/ ^ and you do devise . . . and utter elsewhere the follow- ing, which is superior and better : — ‘ . . . the quietly living gods.’ ^ And ‘ There the blessed gods perpetually enjoy themselves.’*^ And ^ Thus the gods appoint for miserable mortals To live alllicted. But they themselves have no care.’ For these are wholesome and true opinions, but the former are invented for the consternation of men.” In tliis last quotation from Homer, the indifference of tlie gods towards human liappiness is striking. Plutarch’s approval of it strengthens the conviction that heathen conservatives — whatever their repugnance for his teacli- 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 niad, 7, 358. 89 Iliad, 6, 138. 9® Odys. 6, 46. 91 Iliad, 24 , 525, 526. 92 Plutarch, De audiendis Foeiis, 4 ; Moral. 6, pp. 72, 73. 310 JUDAISM AT EOME. [ClI. X. it is no mistake to add his better remark : — ‘ If the gods do anything wrong, they are not gods/ ” ^ 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 bis uncertainty as to whether human affairs were or were not the result of chance.^^ Yet, in the face of this, he alleges human calamities to be unmis- takably the result of divine revenge,®^ 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.^® A fair inference from liis 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 yet in de- ^ Plutarch, De audiendis PoetiSy 4 ; 0pp. Moral, 6, p. 73. Compare on p. 4, extract from Plutarch, Adv. Stoic, c. 14. ^ Tacitus, An. 6 , 22, quoted in Ch. II. note 6. Tacitus, Hist. 1, 3, quoted in Ch. II. note 6. 98 “Prodigies had occurred which that race, enslaved to superstition, hut 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 w^hole 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 wdiich few in- terpreted as indicative of impending wme.” — Tacitus, Hist. 5, 13, Bohn’s trans. “Among Pomans, 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 ns, with other hard stories, that within this sanc- tuary the Jews had consecrated the liead of an ass.^^ Christians equally with Jews were subjects of his aver- sion and inisrepresentation,''^^ — a pretty sure evidence that both divisions of monotheism were x^erceptibly gaining upon lieathenism. 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. Tliis, 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.^^ Tliis may the secUm locality was empty, and their secret rites unmeaning, there being no effigy of gods within.” — Tacitus, Hist. 5, 9. Tacitus narrates {Ilisi. 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, i. This talc, wdtli 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, Aijainst Apion, 2, 7, 7) it was discovered in the temple by Antiochus E|>if)hanes (compare Ch. Vlll. note 190), an account which Josephus treats as first fabricated either by Posidonius or Apollo- nius. In Plutarch’s Symposiacon, 4, 5, 3 {0pp. 8, p. 665, ed. Reiske), one of the sjieakers introduces the same story. We shall find hereafter that a caricature of it found place in Hadrian’s yialace. From a passage in Tertullian’s Apology, 16 (repeated in his Ad Nationcs, 1, 11), it would seem that Christians, or at least the violently semi- Jewish ones, were also taunted with worshipping the head of an ass. See on p. 246, note 189. 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 aiford reasonable hope of a future life. The prejudices of Taeitus clung JUDAISM AT DOME. 312 [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, and by some peculiarities of small minds, such as adulation and cherishing a grudge.^^^ He was com- to a contentious, worthless rabble of deities in whose bands a thoughtful man would have been loath to trust his domestic animals, let alone the welfare of his children. 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. Pie defends himself by saying (§ 2), ‘‘I am A MAN,” homo suiUy 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 Pliny’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. 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 some^^hat extravagant manifestations of grief, and, subse- §iv.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 313 petent to confound tliis latter tendency with the perform- ance of public dutyd^^ His self-esteem and love of approbation, moreover, seem to have been very strong 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.” 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. 106 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 ej^es, the motion of the head, or hand, from a murmur, or from silence.” — 5, § 0. In § 8 of the same letter he mentions that ^Weverentia auditorum, the desire of approval from his auditors,” incited a closer attention to his writings, qui recital aliquanto ao'ius scriplis mis . . . inicndiL In Book 4 , Epistle 19, Pliny narrates the excellences of his T^dfe, 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, laudesque nostras avidissimis aurib^cs exeijnt. She sung his verses (§ 4) to the harp. If he had a cause to plead in the court of One Hundred, she an’anged messengers who should bring her word (§ 3) as to the assensunij expressions of approval, and claiiwreSj outbreaks of applause, which he elicited. In another epistle, — to which the editor has appropriately prefixed the heading, Vanitas ra.nitatum Pliniarum. Omnia, in hoc cpistola 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^®^ 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 ; and, despite the bet- ter feelings of mankind, he advocated brutalities^®^ 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, ‘A^ou 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 - 3. 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 hook 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. AVhat [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. 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. A friend of Pliny named Maximus lost his wife and gave an expen- sive gladiatorial funeral. PI in j’’ writes to him: “You did right. . . . A^ou 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, African(B, of wdiich 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 hii'ing some prize- fighters to pound each other for public amusement, the shock to public feeling w^ould 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. § TV.] POSITION AT CLOSE OF FIRST CENTURY. 315 ably from benevolent motives, he seems unwilling, or ashamed, to plant himself on moral ground This man was sent as proconsul to llithynia 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.^^^ A reactionary administration such as sur- rounded Trajan could not among the sincere and right- minded Bithynians have found men whiling to profess wdiat in their section of country had beconje even more a subject of ridicule than at liome. If Porrian conser- vatives wislied to put su])porters of the old religion into power, they must liave taken them from tliose wdio for the sake of office would become partisans of wdiat they ridiculed in their hearts. The result of this wmuld be maladministration and jilundering of the puldic revenues, besides injustice and extortion tow\ards individuals. To remedy sucli a state of things, Pliny was sent to Bi- thynia.^^^ He may have been financially honest, though Afranius Doxtor — a senator, doubtless — was found killed. "VVlietber by bis own band or that of otbers was uncertain. Ilis slaves liad already been put to tlie torture. Pliny moved tbeir ac(piittal. Another senator moved tbeir banisbment ; still another, tbeir execution. These two latter and tbeir adherents wished to be counted conjointly. Pliny insisted on a separate count of each part}\ Thereui)on the advo- cates of capital punishment, seeing that the ]\arty 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 humanit3^ Yet these are ignored by him, and of his letter (8, 1-1) giving an account of it, one half is a preamble and the other a discussion of parliamentary rules. Pliny writes to Trajan: “It is sufficiently evident that the al- most DESERTED teiuples luive 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 emjitor^ was found.” — Plinv, Jun. 10, 97, lo. 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 DOME. [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, ‘'Eeligion 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- ineasured,^^^ 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 w^ould make him desire the reputation of having accomplished his mission. Tliey needed, therefore, to divert his attention, and the cry which they raised concerning Christians eflected, doubtless, their purpose. The province was, ac- cording to Pliny’s statement, full of Christians belonging exercise forethought for them. . . . Your first duty will he to exact account of public matters, for it is plain enough that they are out of order.” — Ihid. 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 onl}^ 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 briber}’^ and extortion (Pliny, Jim. 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. Cp. (Cli. IV. n. 6) remark of Joseidius on mechanical arts. §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 ])rompted by a wish of delinquents to put out of the way testimony which could not be rebutted. Other accusations, after tlie persecution commenced, may have been the result of private grudge. None of them, if we consider the al)sence 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- tnition from the fact that two questions addressed by the former to tlie latter received contradictory answers, and is also evinced by Pliny’s praise of his uncle,^^*^ a decided atheist.^^^ Pliny states, witli no intimation of doubt as to its cor- rectness, the alleged object of tlie Christians, tliat they bound themselves to rectitude of life; and tlien jiroceeds to term their association “ a dejiraved and extravagant superstition,” supcrsiiiionem praxam ct immodicam}^^ The remark, in such a connection, sounds like utter block- headism. Yet the main object of Pliny’s letter may liave been, and not inqirobably 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 treasuiy delinquents In letters 58, 75, of Book 10, we Lave Pliny’s ]n’opositions, anti in letters 50, 76, we Lave Trajan’s answers. According to tLese latter it appears tLat ground dedicated to tLe “ ^lotLer of tlie Gods” must not interfere witL city improvements, Lut ground dedicated to “ Claudius,” tLe deified emperor, could not Le diverted from sacred uses. TLe former of tLese decisions is accompanied Ly a statement, tliat tlie soil of a for- eign city did not admit a dedication wliicL would Le Linding Ly Roman law. TLe latter decision assumes tlie reverse. Provincials would natu- rally infer tliat a deified emperor was more to be revered than tlie “Mother of tlie Gods.” See letter of Pliny, Jun. 6, 16. Pliny, Sen. Nnt. Hist. 2, 5, 4. Pliny, Jun. 10, 97, 7, s. 318 JUDAISxM AT ROME. [CII. 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 Pome ? At Rome we have seen that, conjointly with Christians, other monotheists were expelled.^^^ Juvenal also mentions conversions to Juda- ism.i^^ If this difference between Rome 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 Rave See notes 29, 44. 118 Some — children of a father, who has an aAve 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 tliat 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.i^^ It perhaps meant so now. 14. A second question arises toucliing the name Chris- tian.’’ In Asia we have several instances of its use.^^^ In Europe, as we learn from Tacitus, the common people used the same term.^^^ Among other classes the terms A-theist, Unbeliever, or Galilean seem to have pre- vailed. Tlie only two instances in Europe where the word '' Cliristian ” is eitlier used, or its use implied, are cases in which an accusation was probably made by Jews.^^^ 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 Clirist most familiar, the term “ Christian ” was more generally used than in other localities. See Appendix, Note B, § ii. 2. Besides Pliny’s letter to Trajan, 10 , 97, see Acts of the Apostles 11 , 2G ; 26, 28 ; and 1 Peter 4, 16. Quos . . . vulgus Christianos adpcllabat, “Those 'vvhom the com- mon people called Christians.” — Tac. An. 15 , 44. See (quotations from Dio Cassius and Justin Martyr in Appendix, Note B, foot-notes 52, 53, 54. Eq)ictetus, In Disscrtat. 4, 7, 0, uses the term “Galileans.” At a date when the term “Christians” must already liave been familiar to European Jews, that is, about A. d. 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. ^ See page 229, also note 189 of Chapter YIII. 320 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. § V. jD. 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 tlie 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, 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 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 (Panegyr. 42, 2) because ‘‘ slaves have been taught their duty. They fear, obey, and have masters.” A"et 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 {Panegyr. 36 , l) 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. 66) 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. 321 §v.] chronological' narrative, a. D. 98-117. 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 Xerva, wliich 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 eartli- quake shook the city to its foundations, and amidst tlie crash of buildings, the fearful loss of life, and the man- gling of human limbs, Trajan, with slight injury, was lielped through a window and escaped to open ground, l^edo, the consul, was killed. Trees were, according to Dio Cassius, uprooted by the eartliquake’s violence.^^ 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. Others may be exaggerations Dio Cassius narrates the earthquake and its attendant circumstances in Book 68, cliapters 24, 25. 126 “Meanwhile [after the Antioeh earthquake] the Jews of Cyrene, jmtting 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 C}’prus 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 ROMK [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. Eusebius records this revolt under Trajan without as- cribing barbarities to the Jews.^^^ 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: “Xa Intcgridad Nacional^ a newspaper published in Madrid, recently contained a series of foul slanders against Francis Sanvalle, the celebrated naturalist, and owner of the Regia Slating Foundry. The slanders were that Sanvalle was an insuigent general, that he had as- sassinated eleven Spaniards, that he then caused a lire of fagots to be built, on which Avere 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. Ciesar, even, who has been thought to avoid exaggeration, states {Bell. Gal. 1 , 2 J)) the number of his enemies — men, women, and chil- dren — at three hundred and sixty-eight thousand ; and in another place {Bell. Gal. 7 , 7G), 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 ic »ppg 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 C)Tenian [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.] CHHONOLOGICAL 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. Tlie 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 oilier cities and towns of the island were not so treated. Tlie discord of a seaport population may have made it an exception to the course of things elsewhere. The destruction, or expulsion, of tlie Mesopotamian Jews, mentioned by Eusebius, was perhaps a military measure connected with Trajan’s exiiedition 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 Sibyliine jiassage which may have owed its origin to the events of Trajan’s latter years,’^^ naval force and also with eavalr3^ He, carrying the war against them through, with many battles during a considerable ])criod of time, de- stroyed many myriads, not only of Cyrenian but also of Egyptian Jews who liad joined their king Lucuas. “ The emperor, suspecting that the Jews in ^lesopotainia were about to attack the inhabitants there, commanded Lucius Cyetus (or Quietus) to clear tliem from that eparchy. He, drawing together an arm}^ murdered a large number of tliem, upon which success he was appointed, by the ernperoi’, governor of Judiea. “Greek [that is, Gentile] writers of that date have narrated these matters in the same words.” — Eusebius, AJcc. 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 destructionJ^^ by an earthquake is mentioned. In that connection it belongs apparently to Nero’s time. 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, Tlie 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, 484 - 503 . The mention of a future temple other than that at Jerusalem is equally remarkable, whether we suppose these lines to have been written befora or after the capture of Jerusalem by Titus. 325 §vi.] CimONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 117-138. § VI. A, D. 117 - 138. Hadrian, Hadrian on his accession, aided by popular indignation, reformed many abuses, repressed a patrician conspiracy, executed (Spartianus, 7, 8) four consular senators, and lived as a result in fear ot assassination, anxious, apparently, by acts of folly misnamed ])iety, to preclude ciiarges ot deserting the state religion.^^^^ When misapplication of a benevolent law caused the Jews to rebel, he may liave feared lest, if he decided in their favor, he should be stig- matized as protector ot ‘ 1 oreign Hites,’ and may for this reason liave left (see Ch. Vll. note 87) all responsibility to the judges. The rebellion began A. D. 131 or 132, it* not earlier (before the death of Antinous ? Sjiartian. 13) and may liave been ])recefled by local outbreaks. Spartianus states that circumcision was foriiidden to tlie Jews, and that this prohibition originated the rebellion.^^*-^ Dio Cassius says that it was caused by Hadrian’s location of a Homan colony on the ruins of Jerusalem, and his erection of a temple to Jupiter where the Jewish one had Hadrian “ relinquislicd many provinces acquired by Trajan.” — Spartianus, 8. ‘‘ Going tlirougli tlie ])rovinee.s he piinislied procurators and head officers for their deeds.” — Spartian. 12. “ He forha«ie killing of slaves hy their masters [cp. note 124], and commanded their condem- nation hy judges if they deserved it. . . . If a master had been killed at home he commanded that toHure should not he ap]died to all his slaves, hut only to those near enough to he aware of it. — Spartian. 17 . “ He separated the baths for the sexes.” — Ibid. i^i*^ Hadrian said : “The condition of emperors is miserable who, until killed, are not believed as to plots against them.” — Gallicanus, Avid. Cass. 2. 131b << He did many pious acts [cp. Ch. VI. note 34] through fear lest what had happened to Domitian should result to him.” — Spartian. in. i3i« Smith, Diet, of Biog. 2 , 321, col. 2, 322, col. 1 ; 3 , 1378, col. 2 ; Eusebius, Clironieon^ Hadrian^ m. 132 Mover^int ea tempestate et Jiidaei helium, quod vetahantur mutiJare genitalia.'' — Spartianus, Hadrian, 13 ; Seript. Hist. August, p. 12. Edicts of Domitian and Nerva (see notes 40, 45) against making eunuchs, probably used the term mutilare genitalia, which patrician judges could misapply against Jews. 326 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. stood.^^^ 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 it 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 the}^ 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 Judaea 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 thExM, 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, beca'use 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 Judaia, with slight exception, was rendered a desert, as alread}^ before the war had been foreshown to them [the Jews]. For the sepulchre of Solo- mon, which the}^ 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 §vl] chronological narrative, a. D. 117-138. 327 The contest, so far as carried on outside of J udaea, mnst 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 sucli heathens as could appreciate rightness 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. o o this war. Wherefore Hadrian, when lie 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 Bitliynia, which had no need of arms, but of a just and wise ruler and presiding officer who had resolu- tion ; all which (pialifications belonged to Severus. And [Sevenis] 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 indemnihed with another province. The book found in the Apocryplia 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- / JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. X. 328 In the Second Book of Esdras are found questionings 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 - 28 ; Laurence’s trans. 4, 2.5-32. 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. W^isdom shall ill 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 neiglibor, 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 }^et their reward appeareth not and their labor hath no fruit : for I have gone here and there through the heathen, and I see that they flow in wealth, and think not upon thy command- §Vi.] CHKONOLOGICAL NAKRATIVE, A. D. 117-138. 329 and hopes, such as were not unnatural in a Jewish mind after the terrible struggle. The edict, or misaj)pli- 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 tlie 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,^'^"^ but can best Jie 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.^^^ They throw some, though but little, light upon it. inents. Weigh thou, therefore, our wickedness in the balance, and theirs also that dwell in the w'orld ; and so shall thy name nowhere he found hut in Israel. Or when was it that they which dwell upon the earth have not sinned in thj'- sight ? Or what people hath so kept thy command- ments ? Thou shalt find that Israel hy name hath kept thy precepts ; hut not the heathen. ... It was not my mind to he curious of the high things, hut of such as pass hy 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 hone effect.” — 2 Esdras, 3, 28 , . 32-30 ; 4, 2 . 3 . See extracts from 2 Esdras on pp. 131 - 134. 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 ). The Psalms of Solomon are published in Fahriciiis, Codex Pscude- pigraphus Veteris Testamenti, 1, pp. 917 -972. One of them attributes the sufferings of the Jews to their sins : “ They have omitted no sin whicli 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 XL 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,^ and con- fortunes of Jerusalem and Judcea to tlie 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-plcasers,” and inverse 10 as “a inan-jdeaser, 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.” Merivaie, 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^dfJLevos y cymlxils, to wliat he wishes, He who does this is greater than the god.”-® An open attack of this kind upon heathen worship is less probably by a heathen than by a Jewish author. Somewhat further on, another quotation is jirofessedly made from a work called Diphilus, “ Friend of God,” which the writer attributes to Menander. It inculcates the hon- oring of one God.2' Clement of Alexandria attributes the same to the comic poet, Diphilus. The Coliortatio ad Gra^cos attributes to a heathen oracle a hymn concerning the Supreme Being, in the midst of which he was spoken of as “ Having formed the first mortal and called him Adam.”^® Theophilus attributes to “Philemon, the comic [poet],” the following : — “ Those who recognize God have Good hopes of salvation.” De Monarchia, 5 ; Clem. Alex. Frotrept. § 75. Justin (Apol. 1, 2c) attributes to Menander a belief in a conllagration. 2^ De Monarchia, 5 ; Justin. 6pp. 1 , p. 126, B. C. ; and in Clem. Alex. Frotrept. § 75, 0pp. pp. 64, 65. 27 De Monarchia, 5 ; Justin. 0pp. 1 , p. 132. Also in Clem. Alex. Strom. 5 , § 134, p. 728. 2^ Cchortatio ad Gra&cos, 38 ; Just. Mart. 0pp. 6, p. 108, D. 22 Theophilus, Ad Aidol. 3 , 7 ; Justin. 0pp. ed. Maran, p. 385, A. 342 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. XI. Compare in the Appendix, Note A, § vili., two Jewish documents attributed to Phocylides. If the question be asked, why these productions should be regarded as Jewish rather than Christian, the answer is, firstly, that, with the exception pointed out in the sec- ond quotation, they bear no marks of Christian peculiari- ties. This would scarcely have been the case had they been fabricated by Christians. Again, the fact that the Erythrsean verses, unquestionably Jewish, are attributed at this date to a daughter of Berosus, favors the sup- position that other Jewish documents would be treated in a similar manner. Further, we find God mentioned as having a name which was not to be uttered. This contradicts the view of Cliristians, that he had no iiame.^^ We find also the Underworld treated apparently as a place both of rewards and punishments. This is antagonistic to the view of Christians, who believed them- selves exempt from it.^^ 3. The document called Acts of Pilate was an attempt to substitute non-Christian in place of Christian testi- mony for facts mentioned in the Gospels. Concerning events in Judcua, Jews were, naturally enough, in the original document, cited as witnesses. Some manu- scripts, as elsewhere mentioned,^^ substitute Gentile mon- otheists instead of Jews. Absence of historical testimony forbids positive decision as to the cause or date of this change. The most probable explanation of it is the an- ta<>'onism to Jews which resulted from this rebellion. O 4. We now come to a fourth result of the war, an em- bitterrnent on the part of semi- Jewish Christians towards the Jews. In considering this, it is difficult to discrimi- nate fully between the natural results of controversy and the additional embitterment occasioned by the war. The semi-Jewish Christians were those, of Gentile origin, most See, in Christ's Mission to the Underworld, note 5 on page 146. See Christ's Mission to the Underworld, §§ xxii., xxiii. See Appendix, Note B, foot-note 4. § 1 .] EFFECTS OF JEWISH REVOLT UNDER HADRIAN. 343 nearly allied in faith to the Jews, in that they believed a llesidy resurrection, and, with perhaps some exceptions, a millennium and rebuilding of Jerusalem. They rejected any belief in the soul’s ascent at death to heaven.^^ Their proximity, on many points, to the Jews, would ac- count for their laying extra stress on points of difference. Yet this stress was obviously intensified by prevalent anti- Jewish feeling. In order to appreciate their arguments against tlie Jews, a modern reader, in England, at least, and America, needs perhaps to be told that, in the second century, no Christians regarded Sunday as the Sabbath, and few, if any, kept it as a day of rest. The Sabbath was deemed by them a temporary institution for the Jews. They, however, not only deemed themselves exempt from its observance, but some of them treated the Jews as foolish for keeping it.^*^ In portions of the East, where tlie war raged less or did not extend, there seems to have been less depreciation of, and discourtesy towards, Jewish institutions. There Chris- tians in their prayers stood erect on Saturday eiiually as on Sunday, — a mark of respect for the day wherewith some Western Cliristians found fault.^ Compare Christ's Mission to the Underworld, pp. 8, 121, lo2-l(57 ; 3(1 edit. pp. 7, 8, 116, 156-161. “ The law given in Horeb is now antiquated, and concerned only you [Jews].” — Just. Mart. Dialogue, 11 ; 0pp. 2, p. 40 B. “Observe that the material universe, (TTOLxeia, is neither idle nor observes any Sabbath. Remain as you were born. For if before Abraham there was no need of circumcision, nor before Moses of Sabbath -keeping and feasts and offer- ings, mdther is there now.” — Just. Mart. Dialogue, 23 ; 0pp. 2, p. 78 B. “It has been shown that these things were commanded you becau.se of your })eople’s hardness of heart.” — Just. Mart. Dialogue, 43; Op)p. 2, p. 136 D. ^ Rheinwald, in his Archceology, § 62, treats the above-mentioned manifestation of honor towards the Saturday as a peculiarit}” of the whole Oriental Church. He says : “The custom of celebrating the old Jewi.sh sabbath equally as Sunday, of abstaining, on it, fi’om fasting, and of standing while praying, probably passed from the community of Jewish Christians into the Oriental Church. In the West, on the other hand, 344 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. XI. § II. Indirect Effects. 1. EXTRAVAGANT USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Among indirect results of the war was an increased extravagance on the part of Christians in using the Old Testament. A motive for its undue use had previously existed. Christians were tempted to fabricate from it evidences concerning Jesus, because the evidence in the Gospels rested on Cliristian testimony, and was therefore inadmissible in controversy against heathens or Jews. To this existing tendency the rise of the Gnostics gave a strong additional impulse. Their allegation, that Christ came not from the God of the Jews, made the Catliolic or main body of Christians more bent on finding him constantly pointed out in the Old Testament. The ex- especially in the anti-Jewish Roman Church, the Sabbath was distin- guished as a fast. Already at an early day this matter was a subject of strife in the church, which became more violent after the middle of the fourth century. When, at last, fasting on the Sabbath was legalized [by a decree] from Rome, this difference furnished in later centuries one of the grounds of church separation between East and West.” Rheinwald, in coming to his conclusions, relies on certain documents (the Apostolic Constitutions and Canons) as representing customs of the Oriental Christians. This may be, in the main, correct. But the infer- ence would be unsafe, that, in Jud?ea, or in the theatre of war anywhere, this mark of respect had been commonly shown, after the war, to the Jewish Sabbath by Gentile Christians. Access to Jerusalem was l)y Hadrian’s edict proliibited to Jews. Marks of respect towards Judaism were not likely to be manifested, or tolerated, within it. Christians throughout Judiea had suffered severely at the hands of Bar-Cochba, the Jewish leader. They were not likely, in return for it, to manifest regard towards Jewish customs. Outside of JiuLnea, the undefined limits of the war foil effort to discriminate accurately between localities in which respect for Judaism remained, or was but temporarily impaired, and those in wliich it was supplanted by hatred. Tertullian, l)efore becoming a Montanist, found fault with such as ob- served the Sabbath after the Eastern fashion. When he had himself become a Montanist he imitated them. Citations from him and other authors may be found in notes which Rheinwald has appended to his § 62. § 11 .] EFFECTS OF JEWISH REVOLT UNDER HADRIAN. 345 travagance of the earlier Fathers in this direction is well known. I append, however, a passage concerning Justin Martyr,^® — who lived through the war and in the time of Justin Martyr “ considers the txee of life planted in Paradise a symbol of Christ’s cross, through which he achieved his triumphs ; and he goes on to descant at great length on the symbolic pinperties of wood . ]\Ioses, he tells ns, was sent with a rod to deliver his peo^ile ; with a rod he divided the sea, and brought water out of the rock. By a piece of wood the waters of Marah were made sweet. With a rod, or staff, Jacob passed over the Jordan. Aaron obtained his priesthood by the budding and blossoming of his rod; Isaiah predicted that there should come forth a I'od out of the stem of Jesse ; and David compares the just to a tree planted by the waters. From a tree, God was seen by Abraham; as it is written, ‘at the oak of Mamre.’ By a rod and staff, David, says he, re- ceived consolation of God. The people, having crossed tlie Jordan, found seventy willows ; and, by casting wood into it, Elisha made iron to swim. In a similar strain he proceeds ; which furnishes no unapt occasion for the sarcastic Middleton to say, that he ‘ applies all the sticks and pieces of wood in the Old Testament to the cross of Christ.’ . . . God, he ob- serves to Trypho, teaching us the mystery of the cross, says, in the bless- ing with which he blesses Joseph, ‘The horns of a unicorn are his, and with them shall he pu.sh the nations to the end of the earth.’ Now, the horns of the unicorn, he continues, exhibit, as it can be demonstrated, no other figure than that of a cross ; and this he attempts to show by a very minute analysis. Then as to the assertion, ‘ With them shall he push the nations to the extremities of the earth ’ ; this is no more than what is now taking ])lace among all people ; for, struck by the horn, that is, penetrated by the mystery of the cross, they, of all nations, are turned from idols and demons to the worship of God. “Again: when the people warred with Amalek, and Jesus (Joshua), the son of Nun, led the battle, Moses, he says, prayed with his arms extended in the form of a cross ; and if they were at any time lowered, so as to destroy this figure, the tide turned against the Israelites; but, as long as this figure was preserved, they prevailed. They finally conquered, he gravely remai-ks, not because Moses prayed, but because, while the name of Jesus was in the van of the battle, the former, standing or sit- ting with his arms extended, exhibited the figure of a cross. His sitting or bent posture, too, he observes, was expressive ; and thus the knee is bent, or the body prostrated, in all effectual prayer. Lastly, the rock on which he sat had, says he, ‘as I have shown,’ a symbolic reference to Christ.” — Lamson, Church of the First Three Centuries, pp. 46-48. 15* 346 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CII. XI. the Gnostics, — and also a specimen of the artistic skill wherewith Origen allegorized the Old Testament so as to connect it with the Gospel history.^^ A reader unfamiliar with Greek may need to know that in that language Joshua and Jesus are one and the same name. Without this, a portion of Justin’s argument would be unintelligible. “In Exodus 15 , 23 - 27 , it is related that the Israelites, after cross- ing the Red Sea, came to the waters of Marah, which were so bitter that they could not drink them ; but that the Lord showed Moses a tree, which when he cast into the water, it became sweet ; and that afterwards the Israelites arrived at Elim, where were twelve wells of water, and threescore and ten palm-trees. “ ‘ It is very strange,’ says Origen, ‘that God should show Moses a tree to cast into the water, to make it sweet. Could he not make the water sweet without a tree ? . . . But let us see what beauty there is in the inner sense.’ He accordingly explains, that, allegorically understood, the bitter waters of Marah denote the Jewish Law, which, in its literal purport, is bitter enough ; so that of its bitterness the true people of God cannot drink. ‘What, then, is the tree which God showed to Moses? Solomon teaches us, when he says of Wisdom^ that she is a tree of life to all who embrace her. If, therefore, the tree of wisdom, Christ, be cast into the Law,’ and show us how it ought to be understood (I compress several clauses into these words), ‘then the water of Mai'ah becomes sweet, and the bitterness of the Law is changed into the sweetness of spiritual intelligence ; and then the people of God can drink of it.’ Origen afterwards remarks on the subsequent arrival of the Israelites at Elim with its twelve springs and seventy palm-trees. ‘Do you think,’ he asks, ‘ that any reason can be given why they were not first led to Elim ? ... If we follow the liistory alone, it does not much edify us to know where they first went, and where they next went. But, if we search out the mystery hidden in these things, we find the order of faith. The people is first led to the letter of the Law, from which, while this retains its bitterness, it cannot depart. But when the Law is made sweet by the tree of life, and begins to be spiritually understood, then the people passes from the Old Testament to the New, and comes to the twelve fountains of the Apostles. In the same place, also, are found seventy palm-trees. For not only the twelve Apostles preached faith in Christ, but it is related that seventy others were sent to preach the word of God, through whom the world might acknowdedge the palms of the victory of Christ.’ Homil. in Exod. 7 , §§ 1, 3; Oiip. 2 , 151 , 152 .” — Norton, Genuineness^ 2, pp. 256, 257, edit. 1844; abridged edition, pp. 305, 306. § II.] EFFECTS OF JEWISH EEVOLT UNDER HADRIAN. 347 The tendency of tlie Cliristians in this direction was counteracted in the latter half of tlie third century by heathen incredulity and ridicule, the result of Christian extravagance and of causes narrated below.^® Arnobius ^ Already, in the earlier part of the second century, some Christian had noted on the margin, or interpolated into the text, of the Old Te.*.- tament two or three lines concerning the supposed Underworld Mission of Jesus. The various forms in which this interpolation appears are mentioned in Christ's Mission to the Underworld^ p. 39; 3d edit. pp. 37, 38. On page 75 (3d edit. pp. 71, 72) of the same work will be found a cjuotation by Tertullian from Psalm 96 , 10, or 97 , l, which, unless his memory failed him, would imply an interpolation, intentional or unin- tentional, of two or three words. The use made by Christians of one, or both, of these passages had, it would seem, created a distrust of their quotations. The author of the Coliortatio ad Graecos, when pro- posing to argue from the Old Testament, tells the heathens, “The pres- ervation until now among 'the Jews of books whicli so uphold our [the Christian] monotheism, was a work of divine providence in our behalf ; for, lest by bringing them from ouii [jdace of] assembly, W’e should afford to those who wish to calumniate us a i»retence for [charging] fraud, we decide to bring them from the synagogue of the Jews.” — Ch. 13, p. 48, edit. Otto. In the first half of the third century a small work, called the Ascen- sion of Isaiah, was forged. Its teachings cannot liavc been acce[)table to the Gnostics nor to the semi- Jewish ]>arty among Catholics, nor to any save an exceptional few among the Liberalist Catholics. A^et, however small its circulation, it could not but add somewhat to the prevailing distrust of professedly Jewish records when used by Christians. In the second half of the third century lived Porphyry, an opponent of Christianity, who had read much, who was widely known, and who enjoyed a reputation at least for ability. He wrote a work in fifteen books against the Christians. Jerome, in his preface to Daniel (Vol. 5, col. 617, 618), sa}^s that “ Porphyry wrote his twelfth book against the Prophet Daniel, maintaining that it was not composed by him whose name it bears, but by some one in Judjea during the time of Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, and that Daniel narrated not so much future events as past ones.” To a chronologist the assigned date would imply that the book was anterior to Christianity. But the mass of the community and a large share even of intelligent persons, at that date, were quite ignorant of chronology. Christianity was more than two centuries old, and the vagueness of their knowledge concerning things which belonged even a 348 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. XL uses no argument from the Old Testament.^^ Lactantius, though a semi- Jewish Christian, forbears such argument in the earlier part of his work, and maintains that it is not advisable with heathens.^^ centuiy before themselves, would have made them take small accouut of inconsistencies in date, especially when this absence of discrimination favored their own prejudices. The work of Porphyry probably assisted in bringing distrust of Christian quotations from the Old Testament to that culmination which is evinced by a citation from Lactantius in our next note but one. The article on Arnobius in Smith’s Dictionary says, ‘‘The Old Testament seems to have been altogether unknown to him.” Some writers have, on this account perhaps, deemed him only a Catechumen — not yet admitted to full communion with Christians — when he wrote. The latter error is partly due to an interpolation of Jerome’s Chronicon. The interpolator, it may be remarked, placed the work of Arnobius twenty or thirty years too late, — a mistake not likely to have been made by Jerome. Lactantius mentions in the earlier portion of his Vvork that the Prophetical writings were discredited as uninspired, and in a later pas- sage asserts that they were deemed recent forgeries. In his Institutes, 1 , 4 , he says, “Persons devoid of the truth do not think that these [Prophetical writings] can be trusted; for they say they were not divine but human utterances.” And in ch. 5 , he continues; “ But let us omit the testimonies of the. prophets, lest the proof should seem less appropri- ate from these [writers] to whom no credence whatever is attached.” In the same work ( 4 , 5), he remarks: “Before I begin concerning God and his works, I must say a few things concerning the prophets whose tes- timony it is now necessary to use.” Then, after an argument for their antiquity, he continues, in the same chapter: “The prophets, therefore, are found to be more ancient than even the Greek writers. All which things I adduce in order that they may perceive their error who strive to convict the Scripture as of late origin and recently forged.” Further on, in the same work ( 5 , 4 ), he finds fault with Cyprian for having argued against the heathen Demetrianus from the Old Testament : “For he was not to be refuted by the testimonies of Scripture, w'hich he regarded as idle, [or] forged, [or] spurious, but by arguments and reasoning.” Lactantius, in the foregoing, uses the term “Scripture” in its then usual sense as designating only the Old Testament. Cyprian, in the work alluded to, had made but one citation (Rom. 12 , 19) from the New Testa- ment, and he probably thought, in making it, that he was quoting from 4 II.] EFFECTS OF JEWISH REVOLT UNDER HADRIAN. 349 2. ANTITHESES OF IREN^US. Another indirect result of the wftr was closely allied with the former one. It is noticeable for its singularity rather than for its importance, since but one writer has given it prominence. Irenaeus assumes that events re- corded in the Old Testament are, to a great extent, anti- thetically repeated in the Christian dispensation. Illus- trations of his peculiarity have been given in another work,^^ and are, therefore, omitted here. He thought, probably, that this repetition implied a direct connection between the two systems, and thus refuted Gnosticism. If the repetition, moreover, were antithetical, the prevalent feeling against Judaism could be met by the question, why not take its antithesis. 3. JESUS DEIFIED AS SUBORDINATE GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Yet another indirect result of the war lias lasted, though in an altered form, until the present day. The Gnostics, as we have seen, maintained tliat the God of the Old Tes- tament could not be the Supreme Being. There was much in the Jewish Scriptures, wliich, if regarded as a literal and reliable record of events, seemed irreconcilable with the attributes of such a Being. Tliese passages, brouglit into prominence by the Gnostics, had to be explained, not to persons brought up with a devout reverence for the Old Testament, but to heathens who were willing enough to ridicule it. Placed in this dilemma, a portion of the Christian controversialists took apparently an idea from Exodus 23, 20, 21, 23, where the Deity is represented as saying of his messenger, who should lead tlie Israelites into Canaan, My name shall be upon him.’' The mes- senger’s name was Joshua, the same in the original as Jesus. Starting from this and assuming, rather than the Old. Compare Deuteronomy 32, 35 , 41 , 43 , with Paul’s phraseology. Cyprian should not, however, be judged by the criticism of Lactantius. See Christ's Mission to the Underworld^ pp. 71-74, 94; 3d edit, pp. 67 - 71, 89, 90. 350 JUDAISM AT DOME. [CH. XL admitting, that much which was narrated could not he understood of the Supreme Being, they alleged an idea nowhere even hinted in the New Testament, that the God who liad appeared to the Patriarchs and spoken with Moses, was a subordinate being and was none other than Jesus in a pre-existent state.^^ “Justin, among many other similar proofs, that there is another god beside the Supreme God, quotes those passages in which it is said, that God ascended from Abraham; that God spoke to Moses; that the Lord came down to see the tower of Babel which the sons of men had built ; and that God shut the door of the ark after Noah had entered. ‘Do not suppose,’ he says {Dialog. 127), ‘that the unoriginated God either de- scended or ascended; for the ineffable Father and Lord of All neither comes anywhere, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor arises; but remains in his own place, wherever that maybe.’ After describing the greatness, om- niscience, and omnipresence of the Supreme God, he proceeds : ‘ How, then, can he speak to any one, or be seen by any one, or appear in a little portion of the earth, when the people could not behold on Sinai even the glory of him whom he sent ? . . . Neither Abraham, there- fore, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man, ever saw the Father, the ineffable Lord of All, even of Christ himself; but they saw him who, through the will of the Father, was a god, his Son, and likewise his angel, as ministering to his purposes.’” — Norton, Genuineness, 2, pp. 248, 249 ; abridged edit. 300, 301. Tertullian says to the Jews : “ For he who spoke to Moses was him- self the Son of God, [the same] who always appeared ; for no one ever saw God the Father and lived. Therefore it is certain that it was the Son, himself, of God who spoke to Moses and said to The People, ‘Zo, I send my messenger before thy face — that is, [the face] of The People — who shall guard thee in the way and introduce thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Attend to him . . . for my name is iq)on him.’ ” — Tertull. Adv. Jiidoeos, 9, pp. 218 D, 219 A, edit. Eigault. 43 a Dialogue witliTrypho [c. 56], Justin Martyr says, ‘ I will endeavor to prove to you from the Scriptures, that he who is said to have appeared to Abraham, to Jacob, and to Moses, and is called God, is an- other god [that is, divine being], different from God who created all things, another, I say, numerically, not in will, for I affirm, that he never did anything at any time, but what it was the will of him who created the world, and above whom there is no other God, that he should do and say.’ ” — Norton, Genuineness, 2, p. 248; abridged edit. p. 300. “Tertullian regarded the Son, or the Logos, as having been the min- § II.] EFFECTS OF JEWISH REVOLT UNDER HADRIAN. 351 Justin distinguishes in more than one form of phrase- ology between the Supreme Being and the pre-existent ister of God in creation and in all his subsequent works. To him lie ascribes wliatever actions are ascribed to God in the Old Testament. ‘ lie always descended to converse with men, from the time of Adam to that of the patriarchs and prophets.’ ‘He who was to assume a human body and soul was even then acquainted with human affections; asking Adam, as if ignorant. Where art thou, Adam ? re[)enting of having made man, as if wanting prescience ; putting Abraham to trial, as if ignorant of what was in man ; offended and reconciled with the same individuals; and so it is with regard to all which the heretics [the Gnostics] seize upon to object to the Creator, as unworthy of God, they being ignorant that those things were suitable to the Son, who was about to submit to human affections, to thirst, hunger, and tears, and even to be born and to die. . . . How can it be that God, the Omnipotent, the Invisible, whom no man hath seen or can see, who dwells in light inaccessible, walked in the evening in paradise, seeking Adam, and shut the door of the ark after Noah had entered, and cooled himself under an oak with Abraham, and called to Moses from a burning bush ? . . . These things V ould not be creilible concerning the Son of God, if they were not writ- ten ; pcu'liaps they would not be credible concerning the Father, if they were.’” — Norton, Gcnitinencss, 2, pp. 249, 250; abridged edit. pp. 301, 302. Tlie citation is from Tertull. Jdv. Prax. 16. Mr. Norton, in another part of his work, states, without translating, the substance of a passage in Origen : “ Origen says, that the distinc- tion made by the heretics in affirming that the Creator is just, and the Father of Christ good, may, in his opinion, when accurately understood, be said of the Father and the Son. The Son is just; he has received authority to judge the world righteously. I\Ien are here prepared by the various discipline which he appoints in justice for the time when he will didiver up his kingdom, wdien God, being all in all, will display his good- ness toward those who have been disciplined by his Son ; and perhaps all tilings, Origen adds, may be thus prepared for its reception. Christ himself has said that the Father alone is good. In like manner, Origen thinks that a true sense may be given to the proposition, that there is one superior to the Creator, Christ being regarded as the Creator; for the Father is greater than he.” — Genuineness, 3, pp. 39, 40. The passage restated is from the Commentary of Origen on John 1, § 40; 0pp. 4, p. 41, edit. De la Rue; 0pp. 1, p. 78, edit. Lommatzsch. To the foregoing citations by Mr. Norton many others might be added. Justin says: “Of which things [that you regard as not proved] I will 352 JUDAISM AT ROME. CH. XI. Jesus. The former is devoid of name because needing none.^^ The latter has a name. The former alone is dyevvrjTos, unbom.^^ The latter owed his existence to the Father. The former is dpprjTos, unspoken, not to be con- versed with.'^^ The latter conversed with Moses from a bush. The former is the ‘'Maker of all things.” To the latter, whatever his alleged agency in the creation, Justin does not apply this title. The former is a^apro9, imperishable.^^ The latter owed his preservation to his Father.^^ The latter was a god Trpoo-Kvv'qTosy to be liom- endeavor to convince you, seeing that you are conversant with the Scrip- tures, [namely,] that there is and [that there] is mentioned [in Scripture] another God and Lord, vtto, subordinate to the Maker of all things, who is also called angel [i. e. messenger] because of his announcing to men whatever the Maker of all things — above whom there is no other god — wishes to announce.” — Dialogue^ 56; 0pp. 2, p. 178, edit. Otto. And again : “I will show, 0 Trypho, that . , . only this very person — called an angel, but being in reality a god — was seen by, and conversed with, Moses. ” — Dialogue, 60 ; 0pp. 2, p. 200, edit. Otto. See also other pas- sages of the Dialogue, in Otto’s edition of the 0pp. 2, pp. 180, 420, 422, 424, 426, 428, and an extract from Justin’s first Apology in Christ' s Mission to the Underworld, Appendix, Note A. Cp. Ind. Testimony, pp. 190, 191. See, in Christ's Mission to the Undervmrld, note 5, on p. 146. Apol. 1, 14 , 49 ; 2, 12 , 13 ; 0pp. 1, pp. 164 B, 234 B, 310 C, 312 D; Dialogue, 5, 114, 126, 127 ; 0pp. 2, pp. 28 D, 380 A, 420 D, 422 E, edit. Otto. Compare Clem. Alex. Strom. 6, 58 . 45 Apol. 2, 10 , 12 , 13 ; 0pp. 1, x>p. 306 A, 310 C, 312 D; Dialogue, 126, 127 twice; 0pp. 2, pp. 420 D, 422 E, 424 B. The term apprjros, as used by Justin, is usually translated ineffable, unutterable, a sense which it has in the first Apology, 9, where applied, not to the Deity, but to his glory. If the meaning attached to it above be erroneous, it is none the less a mark of distinction, applied by Justin to the Father only. It does not, if the concordance of Trommius can be relied upon, occur in the Septuagint ; nor do I remember to have found it applied, in the Sibylline Oracles, to the Deity. 47 Dialogue, 11, 102, 116; 0pp. 2, pp. 38 E, 344 D, 386 C. 45 “God alone is unborn and [inherently] imperishable, and on this very account is he God. All things [coming into existence] after him are born and [therefore] perishable.” — Justin, Dialogue, 5; 0pp. 2, p. 28 D. 49 “Uor if the Son of God be found to say, that he cannot be saved § n.] EFFECTS OF JEWISH REVOLT UNDER HADRIAN. 353 agecl.^^ Justin^ in common with other Christians, probably applied the term o-i/^eLv — meaning to deify, or recognize as God — solely to the former.^^ Any distinct personification of the holy spirit, unless among Alexandrine Gnostics,^^ seems to have begun in the either by his sonsliip, or strength, or wisdom, but though sinless . . . he could not be saved without God, how do not you and others, expect- ing salvation without this hope, reason so as to deceive yourselves.” — Justin, DialogicCf 102; 0pp. 2, p. 344. The remarks are based on Psalm 22, 11 (Septuagint, 21, 11), which Psalm the Fathers put into the mouth of Jesus, because of his quoting on the cross its first verse. 60 “These [passages of the Old Testament] show expressly that Christ should be capable of suffering and TrpoaKvvTjTov deov, a god to be horn- aged.” — Dialogs, 68; 02)p. 2, p. 232 0. “Who is this that is called . . . by David Anointed^ and god to he homaged?" — Dialogue, 126, p. 418 C. This remark of Justin is based on the Greek of Psalm 72, ii (Septuagint, 71, ll), and 45, 12 (Sei)tuagint, 44, 13). Moses “said thus: . . . Let all the angels of God do him homage.'' — Dialogue, 130 ; 0pp. 2, p. 430 C. The citation is from Deuteronomy 32, 43. We Christians “do homage to, and love the Logos of the Unborn and unspoken (or ineffable) God, yaerd rhv B^bv, [next] after God himself.” — Apol. 2, 13; 0pp. 1, p. 312 D. Compare Apol. 1, 49; Dialogue, 34, 37, 38, 52, 64, 78 (twice), 88; 0}jp. 1, p. 232 E ; 2, pp. 112 E, 122 A, B, 126 C, 166 D, 214 B, 264 D, 268 E, 300 C. See also in the Appendix, Note B, § i. No. 10. The verb as quoted from Justin in Note B of the Appendix, foot-note 40, is probably an instance of, mther than a departure from, ordinar}’’ Christian phraseology. There is another instance of its use in Justin which requires a supposition, though a natural one, to harmonize it with the idea that he, in common with most, if not all, Christians, restricted its use to the Supreme Being. The Gnostics regarded Jesus as superior to the Jewish Deity, and they, or some of them, may have designated their relations to him by the term cre^eiv. Justin says, that “instead of deifying Jesus, uvtI toO top ’Irjaovu a^peiv, they confess him in name only.” — Dialogue, 35; 0pp. 2, p. 116 E. The Alexandrine, or Theosophic, Gnostics, of whom the Valentinians were the chief representatives, personified many of the divine attributes, but it is difficult to .say in how far they regarded these personifications as distinct beings. According to them the Supreme Being, whom — as a means of chai-acterizing the depth of his nature — they called “The. Deep,” had dwelt from eternity with Thought, also called Favor and w 354 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. XL early part of the tliird century. In tlie second century Justin, in his lengtliy discussion with Trypho, merely en- deavors to prove a second being who may be called God, but nowhere mentions nor discusses the existence of a third one. In addressing heathens he uses almost exclu- sively the term prophetic spirit, instead of holy spirit. Silence, as his spouse. From this union, between depth of nature and silent benevolent thought, sprung Intellect and, for his bride, Truth. From the union of Intellect and Truth originated the Logos (Reason, in- cluding perhaps creative power) and Life. From the union of Reason with Life oiiginated Man and the Assembly. These constituted the first Ogdoad. See Irenieus, 1, 1, 1, 1, 8, 5; Norton, Genuineness, 3, 113- 130. Christ and the Holy Spirit were produced subsequently to not a few other seons. Tln^y did not belong to the lirst Ogdoad. Justin uses tlie term “ puophetic spirit” in Apology, 1, e, 13, 31, 33 (twice), 35, 38, 39, 40 (twice), 42, 44 (twice), 47, 48, 51, 53 (55 ?), (t), 63 (twdce); 0pp. 1, pp. 150 C, 164 E, 200 B, 206 E, 208 B, 210 A, 214 C, E, 216 D, 218 E (fii^t), 220 B, 224 B, 226 B, 230 A, 232 D, 236 B, 242 B (248 D), 256 C, 264 B, C. He once uses the term “holy prophetic spirit,” Apol. 1, 53; Op27. 1, p. 242 D; and once the term*“ divine holy prophetic spirit,” Apol. 1, 32, p. 204 C ; and twice the term “ holy spirit,” Apol. 1, 33, 67, pp. 208 B, 268 D; and once the term “divine spirit,” Apol. 1 , 32, p. 204 B. If one or more passages have been overlooked in making out the above list, they can scarcely diminish the prominence given in his Apology to the term “prophetic spirit.” Justin nowhere distinctly speaks of the spirit as a person. Indwo jmssages, he speaks of it in a manner which may be illustrated as follows : If a Christian should say that he reverenced God, Christ, and revelation, we vshould regard him as to some extent distinguishing revelation from its author and from the immediate agent through whom it was intro- duced ; but no one would understand him as speaking of a third person, nor deem him inconsistent if he elsewdrere treated it as an interposition of God, or as God manifesting himself more unmistakably to men. Justin regarded the prophetic spirit as a divine interposition in human affairs, and one to which mankind should bow with reverence. In this sense he uses it in Apol. 1, 6, quoted in our Appendix, Note B, foot-note 40, and also, I think, in Aiool. 1, 13. Its location in order and rank after Christ may be because Justin regarded the prophetic sjurit as a manifestation of the Logos in the Old dispensation, wdiilst he deemed Christ an embodiment of the same I^gos in the New. Thus interpreted he does not utter a § II.] EFFECTS OF JEWISH REVOLT UNDER HADRIAN. 355 Even in the third century and later the distinct person- ality and divinity of the holy spirit stood, with its few advocates, in the background, as compared with the deifi- cation of Christ, and is strikingly ignored by others.^^ GLARING self-contradiction when, as we shall shortly see, he identifies it with the Logos. If we wish to understand why Justin in addressing heathens uses the phrase “prophetic spirit” so exclusively and mentions the holy spirit but twice, — one instance being a quotation and the other a statement of Christian usage, — we must remember that heathens were familiar with the idea of a divine impulse which communicated foreknowledge. They contested or denied a divine influence for the moral enlightenment, -or purification, of human beings. See Cicero, DeNat. Deorum. 3,36, quoted ill Ch. 11. note 3. In dealing with a Jew the case was different, and for the convenience of students 1 subjoin some references, incomplete, per- haps, to his use of the word “sriiiiT” in his Dialogue. The term “ prophetic spirit” is used in the Dialogue, 38, 43, 53, 139; Ojf'p. 2, ]>p. 124 E, 138 A, 170 A, 454 H; being also put into the mouth of Trypho in c. 49, p. 100 B. The term “ holy prophetic spirit” occurs cc. 32, 50, pp. 104 E, 178 D; and “divine spirit,” c. 9, p. 36 D. The term “holy spirit” is found in cc. 29, 33, 36 (twice), 54, 56 (twice), 61, 88, 114, 124; 2, ])p. 94 C, 108 B, 120 D, 122 C, 172 E, 184 C, D, 202 B, 306 D, 378 C, 414 C. On Justin’s theory that Jesus was the deity whose direct agency had been recorded in the Old Testament, it would seem that the prophetic or divine influence must have proceeded, not from the Supreme Being, but from his subordinate. He affirms {Apol. 1, 55, p. 248 D), “This was spoken by a prophet [Lam. 4, 20]: ‘ The spirit in our presence is Christ the Lord.' ” Another passage {Apol. 1, 38, p. 214 C) may have been intended to convey the same meaning, though it admits equally well a different one. But in Apol. 1, 33, p. 208 B, C, he says, “ By the spirit, therefore, and the power from God, we must un- derstand nothing else than the Logos, who is God’s first-born, as Moses — whom we have already shown to be a prophet — indicated.” Had Justin regarded the prophetic, or holy, spirit as a third deity, or a third person in the Deity, it is inconceivable that he should nowhere have distinctly stated, nor attempted to prove, a proposition so unknown to those whom he addressed. Otto thinks that Justin deemed the spirit a distinct existence as an angel, or minister, of Jesus Christ. See his Commentatio on Justin, p. 138. The Philosophumena, or Omnium Hceresium Refutatio, a work of the third century, devotes four books to errors of philosophers ; five more 356 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. XL In a former work I leaned to the opinion that the rep- resentation of Christ as special deity of the Old Testament had originated somewhat earlier than Justin’s time.^^ This view and the Gnostic one concerning an inferior Deity who had appeared to the patriarchs and prophets, were so nearly related that, unless they had a common origin, ONE MUST HAVE GIVEN RISE TO THE OTHER. I was then ignorant, as other writers seem to have been, of any im- mediate cause for the rise of Gnosticism. I have now no doubt that it originated in the anti- Jewish feeling occa- sioned by the war under Hadrian, and, therefore, have no to 'those of Christian heretics and Jews; and in the tenth book, after an epitome of philosophies and heresies, lays down (pp. 334 - 337) the true Chiistian faith which recognizes a second though subordinate God, hut utterly ignores a third one. The same peculiarity may be found in the Epistle of Orthodox bishops against Paul of Samosata. Routh, Reliq. Sac. 3 , p. 291. Routh has collected in four volumes the fragments of early Christian writers, much of the spac3, however, being devoted to notes. If his Index, under the term “Spiritus Sanctus,” be complete, there is in his fragments from the first three centuries (exclusive of his notes) no mention of the Holy Spiiit as God, though there are two doxologies ( 2 , p. 308 ; 3 , p. 515) in which the Holy Spirit is mentioned with the Father and the Son. The second of these instances would be difficult to reconcile with the personality of the Spirit, and the former does not imply it. Had Syrian Christians believed the deity of Christ or of the Holy Spirit at the date when Pseudo-Thaddeus was written, it is incomprehen- sible that this apostle should have been represented in teaching a heathen monarch as ignoring the deity of either. Forrest {Hist, of the Trinity^ Amer. edit. pp. 39, 40) gives citations from Origen and Eusebius, which, in discussing a second God, ignore a third one. From the above-mentioned work, published in 1854, the following is copied : “I am inclined to assign a somewhat earlier date than the age of Justin to this opinion, though my only reason for so doing is the strong suspicion that the Marcionite branch of Gnosticism w^as, to a considera- ble extent, but an offshoot from this identical view of the Catholics.” — Christ's Mission to the Underworld, note on page 152; 3d edit, note 4, p. 146. The foregoing left the rise of Alexandrine, or Theosophic, Gnosticism unexplained, or insufficiently explained, though on a single point that system evidently resembled the then incipient Catholic conception. § II.] EFFECTS OF JEWISH REVOLT UNDER HADRIAN. 357 doubt that its discrimination between the Supreme Being and the God of the Old Testament led Catholics to dis- criminate in like manner. Their representation of Jesus as God of the Old Testament was but a consequence of tlie Gnostic view. This consequence was, and for a long time remained, distasteful to the mass of Christians, espe- cially to Jewish ones. One, if not two, generations had passed away after the appearance of this doctrine when Tertullian, a Gentile Christian, addressing Gentile Chris- tians, says, that the most of them cried out against it.^^ Touching extra aversion to it among Jewish Christians, Justin says, that they were less willing to receive it.^^ Origen says, that, without exception, they rejected it.^ “All the simple, — not to call them inconsiderate or stupid, — who constitute always the majority of believers, ex})avcscunty are horrified at the Economy. [The word means literally “household rule or lav/.” Tertullian uses it to designate a family arrangement whereby the Father, as head of the family, had intrusted }>art of his duties to one or two others.] . . . They proclaim that tv/o, and alke.\dy three, Gods are preached by us, but assume themselves to be worshippers of [the] one God. We, they say, hold ‘ The Monarchy.’ . . . The Latins are stu- dious, sonarc^ to emphasize [the word] ‘ Monarchy.’ The Greeks, even, are unwilling to understand the ‘Economy.’ ” — Tertull. Adv. Prax. 3. Tertullian defends himself in two, not very consistent, ways. He alleges (c. 3) that if the divine ^Monarchy is not impaired when administered through legions of angels, neither does it suffer when administered through the Son and Spirit. But in the next chapter he assumes that the Mon- archy, or sole rule, is temporarily intrusted to the Son. “How is it possible that I destroy from [Christian] belief the ^Ionarchy, which I retain in the Son, delivered to the Son by the Father ? . . . We see, there- fore, that the Son is no obstacle to the ^lonarchy, although to-day it is held by the Son in virtue of his office and will be restored with his office by the Son to the Father [after all things shall have been subjected to the Son].” — Tertull. Adv. Prax. 4. The use by Tertullian’s opponents of the word “already” implies that belief in a third God was a recent innovation, and that the intro- duction of a second one was yet fresh in their memories. “I know that this teaching seems paradoxical, and especially to those of your [the Jewish] i-ace.” — Justin, Dialogue, 48; Op;p. 2, p. 154 C. Compare note 60. ^ “When you regard the faith, concerning the Saviour, of the Jews 358 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CII. XI. This repugnance of Jews and Jewish Christians to, or horror at, hearing him, who had taught in their streets, represented as the God who had spoken to Moses, did not prevent the new view from being aided by a concep- tion of Hellenistic Judaism. Some Hellenist Jews had strongly personified the Logos, or Intelligent Agency of God in the universe.^^ Such Cliristian controversial- ists, of heathen origin, as inclined to, or adopted, the new view, treated the Logos as a distinct person and identi- fied it with their subordinate deity of the Old Testament. The chief acceptance of the view was probably among controversialists of this class. Yet, even among these, the writer of the Cohortatio ad GRiECOS, in the second century, ignores it ; the author of the Clementines, in emphatic language, condemns it and the De Monarchia who believe on Jesus, some regarding him as the son of Joseph and Mary, others of Mary and the Holy Spirit, but without any belief in his divine nature, you will comprehend how this blind man [Mark 10, 4G-4S, whom Origen regarded as typifying Judaism] says, ^ Son of David, take pity on me/ ” — Origen, in Matt. 16, 12; 0pp. 3, p. 733 A. See Ch. HI. notes 29, 30. In the book called the Wisdom of Solomon, a prayer begins as follows: — God of [our] Fathers and Lord of compassion. Who hast formed all things by thy Logos And fashioned man by thy wisdom.” Ch. 9, 1, 2. Elsewhere the same book alludes, as follows, to the destruction of the first-born in Egypt : — ^^Thy all-powerful Logos from the heavens, A destroying warrior from the regal seats, Leaped to the middle of the fated land Bearing as a sharp sword thy unambiguous decree. And coming to a stand, he filled all things with death. He touched heaven [with his head], but walked upon the earth.” Ch. 18, 16. In some cases Providence — God’s thoughtfulness put into exercise — • would closely translate the Jeioish use of Logos. In others Fiat, or as in the last citation, Executive-energy would be more appropriate. Com- pare Norton, Statement of Reasons, pp. 332-374. On gigantic stature attributed to heavenly beings compare pp. 259, 338. The Evil One “has contrived that those [Christians] from among §1.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 138-161. 359 Lears for a title the rallying cry of those who would not listen to it.^^ CHArTER XII. CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 138 - 180. .§ I. A, D. 138- 161. Antoninus Pius. The rebellion of the Jews under Hadrian terminated their influence in Europe, though not, perhaps, in Asia.^ We will, however, superadd to the historical narrative an item or two of their condition under the Antonines. The elder of these emperors was a man of better judgment, apparently, than his successor. Good dispositioned him- the Gentiles, who are giving up the divinity of images, should introduce belief in a plurality of other gods, that on their cessation from their /fdrw debasing [or “ earthly ”] polytheistic madness, they may be misled to speak otherwise, or even worse, against the Sole-rulcrship, Mom/ox^cts, of God, so that, not giving a chief place to this Sole-rulership, they may be unable to receive mercy.” — Uom. 3 , 3. “ Denial of Him is for a pro- fessed monotheist to allege until death another God, whether [as the Gnostics ?] a greater, or [as those who deify Jesus ?J a less.” — Horn. 3 , 7 . “Consider before all things that no one is joint ruler with him ; no one participates in his name, on which [very] account he is called God. For he is not only called, but is, Alone, and it is not lawful to think or men- tion another [as God], but if any one should dare [it] his soul will be j)ei})etually punished.” — Horn. 3 , 37 . “Our Lord . . . did not proclaim himself God. . . . The Father is unborn, the Son is born ; the born can- not com[)are with the unborn or self-born.” — Horn. 16 , 15, 16. The work is sometimes called Clementines, sometimes Clementine Homilies. See Tertullian, Adv. Prax. 3, quoted in note 56. 1 The respect shown in the second and third centuries hy Eastern Christians to the Jewish sabbath (see Ch. XI. foot-note 35) renders probable that Jewish influence was not terminated in Asia. The Jews in that section cannot have been everywhere in open revolt. See the last paragraph of a quotation from Dio Cassius in Ch. X. foot-note 133. 360 JUDAISM AT DOME. [CH. XII. self, he seems to have repressed harshness and extortion in others, and, though several times involved in war, to have cultivated amicable relations with foreiun nations.^ The Jewish rebellion, which he suppressed,^ must proba- bly, therefore, have been a remnant of the troubles under Hadrian, or else the act of a few, stimulated by local op- pression or by some of the calamities which befell the liomans.'^ § II. A. D. 161-180. Marcus Antoninus. Marcus, the second of the Antonines, had some good points in his character; but he was weak, and his preju- dices in favor of old institutions^ could not but bias his judgment in matters pertaining to Jews and Christians, while his love of approbation and his inability to say NO, must, not merely in religious, but in all administrative matters, have rendered him an easy prey to such as un- derstood taking advantage of his foibles.® His prejudices Antoiiiims Pius, “appointing, as far as possible, to the administra- tion of public aflairs men who made most account of justice, conferred honor on good officials and removed the bad, without liarshness, from public affairs. Not only, therefore, was he admired by his own country- men, but b}'^ foreign nations, so that some of the neighboring barbarians, laying aside their arms, committed to the emperor’s decisions the settling of their difficulties.” — Suidas, Vol. 3, p. 234 ; copied also in the Abridg- ment of Dio Cass. 70, o ; Vol. 4, pp. 394-396. ^ See Appendix, Note J, foot-note 14. ^ “These adversities happened in his time. The famine, of which we have spoken ; the destruction of the Circus ; an earthquake, whereby cities at Rhodes and Asia were thrown down ; . . . and a fire at Rome which destroyed four hundred blocks or houses.” — Capitolinus, nin. Piles, 9; Script. Hist. August, p. 35. “ Under Antoninus [Pius] a most frightful earthquake is said to have taken place in the regions of Bithynia and the Hellespont.” — Abridgment of Dio Cass. 70, 4; Vol. 4, p. 394. ^ See Ch. II. note 41. ® The elder Antoninus had taken good care of the finances. He abol- ished the salaries of all idlers {Scr^Jt. Hist. August, p. 33), husbanded his resources, and seems to have been constantly well supplied with funds. Marcus, on the contrary, when about to make war, sold the furniture and ornaments of his palace in order to provide means (Capitolinus, Antonin. §11.] CHRONOLOGICAL NARRATIVE, A. D. 161-180. 361 swayed him in retaining at the east a brutal commander ^ who found pleasure in annoying Jews and outraging their religious sentiments,® while his weakness made him per- mit barbarities at liome which his judgment condemned, and against which, probably, his feelings revolted.^ In the writings of this emperor we can discover, what perhaps was equally true in the days of his predecessor, that Judaism at Kome, as an influence to be feared by conservatives, had been superseded by Christianity. The emperor’s sneer is not directed at “Foreign Hites,” but at Christians.^^ Conservatism, however, remained essentially 16; Script. Hist. August, p. 51). This might excite favorable comment, but was a poor substitute for public economy and careful supervision. Possibly the time which he devoted to public lecturing before his depart- ure for the war might have been better spent in making thoughtful pro- vision for his soldiers. Avidius Cassius “first invented that kind of punishment. He planted a pole one hundred and eighty feet high, . . . and from the top to the bottom bound those who were condemned, and set fire at the foot, so that he killed some who were burnt, others who were tortured by the smoke, and others by fear.” — Gallicanus, Avid. Cass. 4 ; Hist. August, p. 71. When this Cassius was in command on the Danube, an auxiliary force under direction of his centurions discovered a body of the enemy, off' its guard, and defeated it. When they returned with high hopes to Cassius, he, instead of rewarding, crucified the centurions, an unheard-of proced- ure ; see Avid. Cass. 4 ; Script. Hist. August, p. 72. Concerning this savage, the emperor writes : “ I have given the Syrian legions to Avidius Cassius, ... for they cannot be governed save by an- cient discipline.” — Avid. Cass. 5 ; Script. Hist. August, p. 73. ® Avidius Cassius “always inspected the arms of the soldiers on the seventh day, . . . the exercise of the seventh day was of all the soldiers.” — Avid. Cass. 6 ; Sa'ijd. Hist. August, p. 73. ® “At the request of the populace [Marcus Antoninus] ordered, indeed, a lion to be brought into [the arena] which had been taught (?) to eat hu- man beings, but he neither witnessed him, nor emancipated his teacher.” Dio Cass. 71, 29 ; Yol. 4, p. 438. Yet he censures (De EebuSy 10, 8 ) not the brutal spectators, but their unphilosophical victims. 10 ** What a soul is that, which, when separation from the body be- comes necessary, is ready for extinction, or dispersion, or continued existence, a readiness resulting from its owm judgment, not from mere obstinacy as [in] the Christians.” — M. Antoninus, Be Rebus, 11, 3. 362 JUDAISM AT KOME. [CII. XII. unchanged, though it had a different antagonist. While pestilence raged, and when a thorough cleansing of the city was, no doubt, desirable, the emperor, by the multi- tude of his sacrifices, made it a public slaughter-house in a fashion which would have shocked a modern sanitary committee. His extravagance in this direction may have caused an antagonistic extravagance, of physically less injurious kind, among some monotheists.^^ The priests whom the emperor summoned from differ- ent directions were mostly perhaps created for the occa- sion. Even under Claudius, a century earlier, all knowl- edge concerning heathen rites had died out.^^ How far these doings originated with the emperor and how far with liis advisers may be a question.^^ Christian writ- The statement in Smith’s Dictionary, Vol. 1, p. 440, col. 2, that “ victims were offered to the gods with the most unsparing profusion,” seems to he implied, rather than asserted, in the life of this emperor by Julius Capitolinus, 13, 21, in Scriiit. Hist. August, pp. 48, 54. Com- pare Appendix, Note J, foot-note 14 near its close. ^ The Recognitions of Clement say, concerning blight, hail, and pestilence : “ From the beginning of the world there was nothing of these things, but they originated in the impiety of men [their dcrif^eLa ? non- recognition of God], . . . altars kindled to demons have also polluted THE AIR with the impure smoke of sacrifices, and so at length the ele- ments became corrupt.” — Book 8, cc. 48, 51. The Clementine Homilies (3, 45) maintain that sacrifices in the Jewish dispensation were not by the command of God. See extract from Tacitus, Annals, 11, 15, quoted in note 126 on p. 225. The rule of action adopted by Marc Antonine rendered him the tool of the aristocracy. “ He always, before doing anything in war, or in civil matters, consulted men of rank optimatihiis. Moreover his especial opinion alw'ays was, Ht is more equitable that I should follow the counsel of so maniy and such friends, than that so mayiy and such should folloio my wish [that] of a single friend.' ” — Capitolinus, M. Antonin. 22 ; Script. Hist. August, p. 55. This was an easy method of shirking responsibility. The aristocracy, doubtless, knew how to employ him in an apparently commendable manner. According to Dio Cassius (71, 6), he “often,” in the administration of justice, devoted eleven or twelve days to a case, sitting until night, and instead of enjoining brevity “ he habitually com- manded abundance of water to be measured out to the pleaders ” in the water glasses for the measurement of time. 363 § I.] MORAL, LITERARY, AND MENTAL CULTURE. ings render probable tliat these proceedings were accom- panied by a persecution of Chri.stians. The conservative party, however, did not yet feel their cause so desperate as in the days of Aruobius.^^ CHAPTER XIII. HUMAN CULTURE. § I. Moral, Literary, and Mental. A FULL treatise on the above heading would require a volume. The object of the following remarks is simply to point out some relations between these tliree classes of culture, and to draw a lesson from history as to their value. Moral culture is a prerequisite to the safe establisJmient of free institutions,^ and is necessary even to prevent disintegration of society.^ To individuals it is a most See Ch. V. note G4. 1 “The spirit of liberty is not merely, as multitudes imagine, a jeal- ousy of our own particular rights, an unwillingness to be o])pressed our- selves, but a respect for the rights of others, and an unwillingness that any man, whether high or low, should be wronged and trampled under foot.” — Channing, JVorlcs, Vol. 5, p. 341. “There may be much intellectual culture [compare Seneca, Epist. 83, -2, cited on page 49] which will not tend even indirectly to form men to the ready practice of their duties, or to bind them together in mutual sympathy and forbearance, unle.ss it be united with just conceptions of our nature and the objects of action. Let us form in fancy a nation of mathematicians, like La Place or La Lande, ostentatious of iheir atheism ; naturalists as irreligious and impure as Buffon ; artists as accomplished as David, the friend of Bobespierre ; philosophers, like Hobbes and Mandeville, Helvetius and Diderot ; men of genius, like Byron, Goethe, and Voltaire; orators as powerful and profligate as Mi rabeau ; and hav- ing placed over them a monarch as able and unprincipled as the second Frederick of Prussia, let us consider what would be the condition of this 364 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. XIII. important element in the formation of sound judgments.^ In its absence the mental powers are frequently misdi- rected and frittered away, or clouded by bad feelings, or wasted in personal disputes,^ or impeded by self-indul- gence, or impaired by physical vices. These truths, though recognized and inculcated by some, have been too little appreciated. Another fact unnoticed, or too little noticed, is that MORAL PURPOSE IS A DIRECT AND POWERFUL STIMULUS TO MENTAL DEVELOPMENT. If two individuals of equal capacity start in life, one with moral aims earnestly held and the other without tliern, the former will far more cer- tainly than the latter become intelligent. Moral purpose forces upon us daily questions of right and wrong towards our fellow-men, our family, and ourselves. Attention to these questions creates A habit of observation and re- higlily intePiectual community, and how many generations might pass before it were laid waste by gross sensuality and ferocious passions. So far only as men are impressed with a sense of their relations to each other, to God, and to eternity, are they capable of liberty and the bless- ings of social order.” — Norton, Statcjnent of Reasons, pp. 25, 26. “The exaltation of talent, as it is called, above virtue and religion, is the curse of the age. Talent is worshipped; but, if divorced from rectitude, it will prove more of a demon than a god.” — Channing, Works, Vol. 2, p. 362. ^ “Whoever desires that his intellect may grow up to soundness, to healthy vigor, must begin with moral discipline. Reading and study are not enough to perfect the power of thought. One thing above all is need- ful, and that is, the Disinterestedness which is the very soul of virtue. To gain truth, which is the great object of the understanding, I must seek it disinterestedly. Here is the first and grand condition of intellectual progress. . . . Without this fairness of mind, which is only another phrase for disinterested love of truth, great native powers of understand- ing are perverted and led astray ; genius runs wild ; * the light within us becomes darkness.’ ” — Channing, Works, Vol. 2, pp. 360, 361. ^ Let any one, after reading in Thiebault {Anecdotes of Frederick the Great, Vol. 2, pp. 384-399) the quarrels between Maupertuis and Vol- taire, and between the latter and Frederick, ask himself whether it were possible in an atmosphere of contention, befitting grown-up children, that human judgment should not be warped and distorted by malevolent feeling. § 1 .] MORAL, LITERARY, AND MENTAL CULTURE. 365 FLECTION which does more for mental development than any other one agency. An individual without moral aims may, or may not, derive from his surroundings in life a constant inducement to eflbrt. In most cases lie will not, and, even when he does, his judgment is more likely to be warped by feeling or self-interest. These remarks are in a yet greater degree true of two commu- nities. One in which moral aims are prominent will inevitably become intelligent far more rapidly than an- other which places such aims in the background. Literary culture, aside from its indirect aid to morality and intelligence by opening stores of human experience, supplies a want which, if imsupjilied, would bar moral, as other, progress. It furnishes terms whereby we can express to ourselves and lay up distinctly in memory the result of our observations. As arithmetical calculations would become a mass of confusion if we had but one term or figure for a great variety of numbers, so in morals and in estimating varieties of human character, if things es- sentially different have, through poverty of language, to be expressed by one term, they become readily conl'used. Moreover, communication on moral topics with others is, under such circumstances, ditficult and imperfect. Mental culture — the acquisition of knowledge and of the capacity to use it^ — maybe jnoinoted by a variety of outside aids and incitements. It has an inherent wortli because of ability which it imparts for increasing our own welfare and that of others. It has also, in civilized so- ciety, much bearing on moral culture, not merely of the community, but of individuals. The co-operation of in- telligence with individual morality is exerted in a variety ^ “ Intellectual culture consists, not chiefly, as many are apt to think, in accumulating information, though this is important, but in building up a force of thought which may be turned at will on any subjects, on which we are called to pass judgment. This force is manifested in the concentration of the attention, in accurate, penetrating observation, in reducing complex subjects to their elements. ... To build up that strength of mind wdiich apprehends and cleaves to great universal tniths, is the highest intellectual self-culture.” — Channing, IForks, Vol. 2 , pp. 362, 363. 366 JUDAISM AT DOME. [CH. XIII. of ways, direct and indirect. It brings us in contact with a wider public opinion, thus aiding emancipation from local errors in morality. It enables us to study more dis- criminatingly the actions and characters of our neighbors, as also the influences to which they are subjected, and tluis not only obviates causeless dissensions and jealous- ies, but unveils opportunities of kindness. It facilitates scrutiny into the experience whether of ourselves or of others, thus guarding us against missteps, innocent in themselves, which would render subsequent adherence to morality more difficult. It prevents our being misled by skilful misrepresentation of wrong as if it were right. It prepares us against moral emergencies by suggesting questions and aiding reflection, thus rendering possible AVELL-MATURED OPINIONS OF THE COURSE TO BE PURSUED IN MANY CONTINGENCIES OF LIFE. It opeiis facilities for inter- course with the morally judicious and wise. It strength- ens our capacity for physical and moral self-discipline. The foregoing assumes that conscience merely enjoins doing right and avoiding wrong. In some cases right and wrong are obvious. But in the vast majority of questions which civilization and culture bring with them, our con- science by commanding us to do right imposes an obliga- tion of first ascertaining it.® Aside from the moralities of private life there exists under free governments a class of duties unrecognized by absolute monarchies,'^ those, namely, which pertain' to ^ Conscience may require a mechanic to do his work well, but cannot by intuition decide for him the requisite strength of a bridge, a boiler, or an axle ; nor for a conscientious legislator the relative effect of differ- ent proposed laws ; nor for a professional man the exact proportion of time due to his family and to his patients, or clients, who need and de- pend on his aid for their lives, or means of living. A business man in pecuniary embarrassment cannot, in most cases, tell by intuition whether an extra loan will extricate him and permit justice to all his creditors, or whether it will but increase their number. The conscientiously be- nevolent may need debate as to whether they should give or withhold. If multitudinous questions of right and wrong could be determined with- out thought, conscience would cease to develop the mental powers. 7 In the winter of 1840-41, while conversing one evening at Berlin, I §1.] MORAL, LITERARY, AND MENTAL CULTURE. 367 improvement or development of the community and to amendment of its organization or legislation. Nothing is plainer than that, in the absence of intelligent morality, these will be badly performed, or will remain undone. If we now turn to Greek and Noman history, we are taught the value of moral aims. Where monotheism had spread these aims, namely, in Asia Minor, Syria, and Northern Egypt, we find most peace, industry, intelli- gence, and general culture.® The coincidence between the rise of this, so called, Greek Culture and the advent of monotheistic influence favors the supposition that it was chiefly due to moral aims which tliat influence diffused. In tlie fourth century before the Christian era we find the Jews already prominent in two of these countries, whilst the indirect evidence of their subsequent numbers assures us that the same had taken place in the remaining one. needed the German expression for public spirit and asked it from an old gentleman who considered it for a time, then debated it with others, and finally told me, “There is no corresponding term in German, and the reason for it is, we do not have the thing. The police takes care of every- thing here.’' The term “ Gemeinniitzigkeitsgeist ” might, under free institutions, readily acquire the sense of public spirit. At present, how- ever, it scarcely means more than public benevolence. ' In the year 1840, while the author was in Germany, a carefully written article in a lead- ing newspaper of Berlin, after mentioning that a visitation of prisons, }>roposed by Elizabeth Fry, had been declined, added tbe following: “This decision cannot but be approved even by one of those who think us enlightened enough now and then to take care of matters of common interest without always waiting for the commencement to be made by the government.” An old man, in one of the more liberal countries of continental Europe, WTote me in the same year: “ Until w’e obtain truly republican institutions we shall always find, that whatever we may un- dertake for the benefit of society at large will be opposed by the people in authority, unless we obtain their protection and patronage previously to giving any publicity to our proceedings.” Cp. pp. 95, n. 65 and 577, n. 59. ^ Compare in notes 23, 24, of Ch. II. the remarks of Cicero concerning Asia Elinor, and of Tacitus concerning Syria. The latter country is designated (Tacitus, Hist. 2,80) as “ peaceful and wealthy.” The pros- ]ierity of Asia Minor (see p. 197) made consular patricians quarrel for its possession as for a prize. Alexandrine culture is well known. 368 JUDAISM AT HOME. [CH. XIII. During and after this century we find medicine and as- tronomy assuming position as sciences^ in these partly monotheized lands and a body of intelligent moralists, the Stoics, coming into existence. In Greece proper this culture did not exist.^^ In Judiea, where a blending of political and religious authority had substituted ritual ob- ^ Hippocrates, who is said (Smith, Diet, of Biog. Vol. 2, p. 483, col. 1) to have died b. c. 357, was the earliest physician who could be called scientific. At a later date schools of note grew up. Not one among the prominent physicians or astronomers of antiquity originated from Greece. Not a man of science belonged to her. The temjdes of Athens evinced professional skill and taste in their architects ; but when we learn, that at the date of their erection, the meanness of the private houses formed a striking contrast to the magnificence of the public buildings” (Smith, Did. of Geog. Vol. 1, p. 264, col. 1; art. Athence^ § vii.), the inference seems unavoidable, that, for the erection of these latter, skilled labor and superintendence were imported. When Cicero studied at Athens, two, at least, of his three instructors, Antioch us and Demetrius, were from Syria, and he went subsequently to Asia Minor to perfect himself. The Stoic teachers at Athens were all immigrants. Aristotle might seem an exception to the remark that no man of sci- ence belonged to Greece. He was, however, not born in Greece, but in Macedonia. His guardian, Proxenus, was a resident of Atarneus, a town of Mysia in Asia Minor, where the city ruler Hermias (Diog. Laert. Aristot. 5) allowed Aristotle great privileges. His father’s fiiendsliip with Proxenus, and his profession, that of physician, render it probable that he also (see Note M) came from Asia Minor. Aristotle was driven from Athens (Origen, Adv. Cels. 1, 05 ; Diog. Laert. Aristot. 7) on a charge of ace^eia, unbelief, and had to leave the city secretly. He shows acquaintance with monotheism, his opinion of God being analogous to the Stoic one. His argument for the divine existence is based on the capacity of self-motion. (Compare Appendix, Note K, foot-note 37.) “The boundary of the whole heaven, that which encloses all time and infinity, is the immortal and divine al(hp [det C3v\ AEon^ named from his ever existing.” — Aristotle, De Cmlo^ 1, 9; 0pp. 2, p. 382, lines 50-53. To this Being he, in the next line, as I understand him, attributes the existence and life of everything else. Compare views of his disciples in Origen, Adv. Cels. 2, 13. See Appendix, Note K, for monotheistic views in his predecessors, Xenophon, Plato, and Heraclitus. His thoughts of his father Nicomachus must have been blended with moral teaching, for he termed his work on Ethics “ Nicomachean.” § T.] MOKAL, LITERARY, AND MENTAL CULTURE. 369 fiorvRnces for moral aims, this culture was also unknown. In Italy monotheism — though some of its literature had keen proscribed and destroyed in B. c. 13 or 12 — en- countered its most direct and violent persecution after the death of Augustus. Whether the better features of the Augustan age were not due to its influence is a fair question. From that time forward the aristocracy strove with varying success to expel, or suppress, to annoy, or hold it in check at Rome. A consequence of this was, that the attractions of the capital and tlie world’s wealth which had been brought thither could not make Greek culture indigenous nor even lure it to any great extent from the provincial towns wliich enjoyed medical and astronomical skill unknown at Rome. Three centuries after the Christian era these provinces, in spite of Roman misgovernment and exaction, had so outstripped the rest of the empire, that Constantine, from motives of self- interest, professed their faith and built a new capital adjacent to the strongest of them. When political control was placed, by the triumph of Christianity, in professedly Christian hands, the mistake was made of supposing that Christian authorities ouglit to care for and superintend Christian faith and observ- ances.^^ A result of this was, that human dogmas and “ Very few paucissimi of tlie Romans have touched it [the medical art], and they immediately became renegades into [the ranks of] the Greeks.” — Pliny, Nat. Hist. 29, 8, 2. Compare on p. 12 note 27. 1*“^ The mistake that Christian authorities ought to take interest in, and supervise Christian teaching and institutions was to some extent honest, though in larger measure due to the love of control. So far as honest it resulted from the inability of human beings to divest themselves of the belief, that a Christian government should do as much for Christianity as they had been accustomed to see the heathen government doing for heathenism. Early education is often hard to unlearn. A lady in re- publican Geneva — herself connected with the liberal wing of the state church — was horrified at learning from me, that the United States gov- ernment made no provision to teach children the Christian religion. De Wette, a scholar, exiled for real or supposed sympathy with the anti- monarchical party and counted usually among liberalist theologians, must, as his words imjdy, have been e(pially shocked at the thought of 16**^ X 370 JUDAISM AT ROME, [CH. XIII. follies soon occupied more prominence than practical monotheism. The sense of individual responsibility to God was weakened or displaced by the degree in which men s opinions and actions were subordinated to eccle- siastical authority backed by civil power. Moral aims became less conspicuous and human culture stood still or receded. Centuries were, however, needed to undo what centuries had built up. When the Arabs overran these early monotheized provinces they found there, and brought with tliern into Spain, a knowledge of medicine and astronomy, which made their universities the resort of Europe,^^ and, in the days of the Crusades, consid- separating Cliurcli and State. “What,” he says, “ is a physical perse- cution of Christian belief with fire and sword compared ... to the flattery and imposition of the so-called love for freedom. . . . According to the counsel of those who assume, and are, therefore, supposed, to stand on the summit of present culture, the state should renounce Chi istian principle and j)lace itself on the ground of indifference, if not of atheism.” — De Wette, Erldaerung der Offenharung^ p. vi. De Wette may have confronted ifreligion, but the non-intervention by gov- ernment in religious matters, so well established and cherished in our own country, would to him have seemed “ indifferentism.” “ The literary institutions of the Spanish Mohammedans were so celebrated that they weh’e frequented by Christian students from all coun- tries of Europe.” — New Am. Cyclopaedia, Vol. 14, p. 809, art. Spain. “ Under the Christian emperors every towm of a certain size had its arelii- atei's (chief physicians), and no one could practise medicine without having undergone an examination by them. They were paid by the state, and in return were bound to attend the poor gratuitously . . . Hospitals and dispensaries owe their origin to Christianity ; the pagans appear to have had no analogous institutions. . . . While the western empire had sunk into barbarism, and the eastern, sadly limited, was strug- gling for existence, medical science found refuge for a time among the Arabians. . . . Their writings consist mainly of compilations from the Greek authors, . . . and all the knowledge Europe had of the Greek authors was derived from the translations of the Arabs. ... As order again began to emerge from the chaos of barbarism which succeeded the fall of the western Roman empire, monks and priests became the PRINCIPAL PHYSICIANS, and a little medicine was taught in some of the monasteries ; for a long time the Benedictine monks of Monte Cassino ESTHETIC CULTURE. 371 § II.] erable remnants of this culture 'are said to have ex- isted.^^ § II. ^stlidic Culture, or liefinement ^stlietic culture, or delicacy of perception, expresses the finer culture of various faculties, so that no little dis- crimination becomes requisite in its use. Sometimes it expresses a culture of, or chiefly depend- ing upon, physical organs. Thus the appreciation of painting and music must depend largely on qualities — natural or acquired — of the eye and ear, and may co- exist with defective mental or moral development. Sometimes it denotes mental refinement. To this be- longs the ready discernment, or appreciation, of beautiful ideas, language, or mental traits ; sensitiveness to any uncouth or coarse word or act; a capacity also for so using language, that with, or even without, definite mean- ing, it shall produce a grateful impression, either by its enjoyed in this respect an extended reputation. From the ninth to the thirteenth century the Jews, acquiring in their commerce with the Sara- cens [?] such knowledge as was possessed by the latter, became cele- brated AS PHYSICIANS ; and as such, despite the laws which forbade them to administer remedies to Christians, obtained access to courts and even to the palace of the Roman pontiffs.” — New Am. Cyclopaedia, Vol. 11, p. 346, art. Medicine. It would seem more likely, that the Jews derived their medical knowledge from their own brethren at the East, where such knowledge was common. They and the Saracens prob- ably obtained their knowledge in the same locality. ‘‘If we compare, at the era of the Crusades, the Latins of Europe with the Greeks and Arabians, their respective degrees of knowledge, in- dustry, and art, our rude ancestors must be content with the third rank in the scale of nations.” — Gibbon, ch. 61 ; Vol. 7 , p. 379, Philada. edit. 1816. “ After the fall of Constantinople, learned Greeks escaping from the captured city carried a knowledge of their language and literature to the Western world. Previous to this date the Greek medical writers had been read only through the medium of faulty Arabic tra?islations ; but medical men now availed themselves of this new source of information, and translations of Galen, Hippocrates, Dioscorides, etc., were made di- rectly from the Greek.” — Nev/ Am. Cyclopasdia, Vol. 11 , p. 347, art. Medicine. 372 JUDAISM AT DOME. [CH. XIIL musical flow, its cadence, or its rhythm, or by the word- pictures which it presents, or the associations which it recalls. Sometimes it indicates culture of moral faculties ; deli- cate cognizance of, and adaptation to, another’s state of mind or feeling ; habitual readiness to perceive, conjoined with care and tact to avoid, what may irritate or wound, what may arouse prejudice, quicken wrong desire, dis- courage right effort, or awaken painful recollections. It includes appreciation of correct feeling, and skill to elicit or commune with it ; reverent appreciation of sorrows or of affections which an obtuse nature might ridicule, and wherewith a morally undeveloped one might trifle. Sometimes two, or all three kinds of culture may be manifested in action or conversation, and may conjointly be intended by the term '' aesthetic.” Refined manners are generally the result of both mental and moral culture. Again, the skill wherewith a woman selects and arranges the furniture and adornments of her house may imply a perceptive eye, mental refinement, and, in more ways than one, moral culture. If- undue expense be avoided, if the pictures on the walls appeal to kindly and generous emo- tions, they may indicate a cultivated heart, or a developed moral sense. Clearness requires that different senses of the term aesthetic ” should not be confounded. In heathen Greece and Rome aestheticism concerned itself chiefly with what was physical. The remains- of heathen sculpture evince that the artist strove to portray physical grace and beauty, or muscular development and struggle, rather than mental emotion or moral traits. Even for this the skill seems to have been imported from lands which had been cultivated by monotheistic influ- In every refined community taste in some individuals has been de- veloped at the expense of judgment. A well-delivered discourse, destitute of anything save beauty of language, illustration, and sentiment, or a book written in the same vein, produces on them an effect similar to what they would experience at the sight of a beautiful landscape, or in listening to favorite music. Others again, while requiring sense, need grace of diction to a degree that detracts from earnestness. ESTHETIC CULTURE. 373 § ii] ence.^® Portrait-painting must have been cultivated by monotheists, for Sirach states (38, 27) tliat the artist shall by sleepless attention render liis work perfect. In the field of sculpture they, during the age of heathen suprem- acy, must have labored only to a limited extent. They would have found little sale for works, save of a class which they did not care to execute, — works connected with idolatry or heathen customs. The beauties of nature found recognition almost exclusively among monotheists.^^ The defect of heathen art can be illustrated by comparing it with some modern productions. In a work by Rogers called “Mail Day,” a common soldier perplexes his brain as to what he shall write home. Grace and beauty are subordinated to the expression of a mental state. The piece appeals to cultivated feeling. Heathen efforts must have been rude before monotheistic influence. Pliny states (Nat. Hist. 34, 16, 2) that even in Etruria, more skilful than Rome, images were of wood until after the conquest of Asia. Had high skill been indigenous at Athens, there is no reason why bronze and marble statu- ary in Italy should have awaited the conquest of Asia. If, on the contraiy, the skill in Greece were imported, we can comprehend the statement in an article on Phidias (Smith, Diet, of Biog. 3, p. 243) : “A contrast ex- ists [as regards ancient artists] between wdiat we know’ of their fame and . . . works, and what w’e can learn respecting . . . their lives.” Their early lives were unknown to the people among w’hom they labored. Compare a quotation from Smith in note 10. The Jupiter of Phidias w’as a patchw’ork concern of wood or stone plastered wdth ivory and gold. Even as regardo sculpture and painting their condition among modern Asiatics fairly sug- gests that moral culture, if not a prerequisite in the artist, must exist in the community by whose influence he is formed. 17 « When I consider thy heavens . . . the moon and stars which thou hast ordained, what is man that thou art mindful of him.” — Ps. 8, 3, 4. “O Lord . . . w'ho stretchest out the heavens as a curtain, . . . the earth is full of thy riches.” — Ps. 104, 1 , 2, 24. “ He . . . that stretcheth out the heavens as a canopy and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.” — Is. 40, 22. “There is one glory of the sun and another of the moon and another of the stars.” — 1 Cor. 15, 41. “ I will be as the dew to Israel, he shall bloom as the lily. . . . His beauty shall be as the olive-tree. . . . They that dwell under his shadow . . . shall revive as the corn and grow as the vine.” — Hosea 14,5-7. “Consider the lilies of the field. ... I sa}^ unto you that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.” — Matt. 6, 28, 29. “The heavens de- 374 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. XIII, The species of aesthetic culture which consisted in word-pictures, in a dexterous use of beautiful language, of pleasing illustration, or of attractive allegory, had its seat at Alexandria. Its remains favor the supposition that it dwelt mainly among Jews and monotheists.^ Disciples of this school, rather than of heathenism, attained chief skill in its use, and have left the most finished specimens of the high perfection to which they carried it. Clement and Origen, in the latter part of the second and first half of the third century, Valentinus and his followers, at and before the middle of the second, have no compeers in this direction among heathens. Philo, still earlier, shows the same tendency with less skill. The Epistle to the Hebrews has not a little of this Alexandrine trait. Moral aestheticism and its results are of course to be found chiefly in communities which give prominence to moral culture. Eefinement of feeling, respect for the affections, and quickness of sympathy are seldom matters of historical record. What we find concerning them, or implying them, must be sought principally in the writings of monotheists, or of those who have been influenced by monotheism. In such writings we find a prominence given to home relations, and a delicacy of feeling incul- cated which is absent, or nearly so, from heathen records. dare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork. . . . The sun . . . which is as a bridegrQom coming out of his chamber, arid rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.” — Ps. 19, 1 , 4, 5. “ The pure firmament, the appearance of heaven, a magnificent spectacle, . . . the glory of the stars, a light-giving ornamentation. . . . See the rainbow, intensely beautiful in its splendor, and bless him who made it. . . . It bands the heaven with a glorious encirclement, and the hands of the Most High have stretched it.” — Sirach, 43, 1 , 9, 11, 12. The people to whom such language was addressed must have been thought competent to appreciate it. Heathen poets call no one’s atten- tion to the beauties of nature. 18 << The Lord has elevated the father above his children and established the mother’s authority over her sons. ... He that is obedient unto the Lord will be a comfort to his mother. . . . Honor thy father and mother, both in word and deed. . . . My son, help thy father in his age, and grieve him not as long as he liveth. And if his understanding fail, have § 11 .] i^:STIIETIC CULTURE. 375 The superior reverence for woman and for maternal influ- ence which prevailed among monotheists, as compared patience with him, and despise him not when thou art in thy full strength. For the relieving of thy father shall not be forgotten. ... He that for- saketh his father, eipials a blasphemer ; and he that angereth his mother, is cursed of God.” — Sirach, 3, 2- 1(5. “ Hear, 0 my son ! the instruction of thy father, And neglect not the teaching of thy mother.” — Prov. 1,8, Noyes's tr. Compare Prov. 6, 20 ; 13, 1 ; 15, 20 ; 23, 22, 25. “ Better is a dinner of herbs, where there is love. Than a fatted ox and hatred therewith.” — Prov. 15, 17, Noyes’s tr. “Anxiety in the heart of a man bowcth it down; But a kind word maketh it glad.” — Prov. 12, 25, Noyes’s tr. “ The charm of a man is his kindness.” — Prov. 19, 22, Noyes’s tr. “ A soft answer tnrneth away wrath.” — Prov. 15, 1. The meaning of the following can be best conveyed by paraphrasing it : — “A rightly worded answer Equals an affectionate kiss.” — Prov. 24, 26. “ Do not accompany your kind offices with censure, ... a word is [sometimes] better than a gift, . . . both will be found in a kindly dis- j)o.sed man.” — Sirach, 18, 15-17. 19 “Houses and riches are an inheritance from fathers; But a prudent wife is from the Lord.” — Prov. 19, 14, Noyes’s tr. “ He that findeth a wife findeth a blessing. And obtaiiieth [a] favor from the Lord.” — Prov. 18, 22, Noyes, tr. “ Her children rise up and extol her; Her husband, and praiseth her.” — Prov. 31, 28, Noyes’s tr. “ Do not [through indilference] miss a wise and good wife, for she is a boon beyond gold.” — Sirach, 7, 19. Compare the utterance of Valen- tinus (Ch. XI. note 9) that a man is degenerate who has passed through life without loving a woman. “ Blessed is the husband of a good wife. ... As the rising sun in the heavens, so is the beauty of a good wife in the world of her household. . . . As a light in a consecrated candlestick, so is the beauty of her face in ripe age.” — Sirach, 26, l, lo, 17 . “Ye husbands, dwell with . . . giving honor to your wives, as co- heirs to the favor of [a future] life.” — 1 Pet. 3, 7. “ Exhort . . . the elder women as mothers, the younger as sisters.” —1 Tim. 5, 1, 2. Compare the preceding note. 376 JUDAISM AT HOME. [CH. XIII. with heathens, is sure evidence, that in its company ex- isted a higher refinement than elsewhere of the feelings and affections. Dio Chrysostom, though nominally a heathen, grew up surrounded by monotheism. Its refin- ing influence is manifest in his writings. § III. Industrial Culture. The prosperity of any community and the welfare of its individual members depend largely on habits of industry. Where these are wanting, vice and discon- tent are sure to enter. An unoccupied mind craves excitement, and can only be satiated by injury, or ruin, to itself. The Indians of America illustrate this. In those sec- tions of the continent where men were accustomed to labor, namely, in South America, Central America, Mexico, and to a slighter degree in the southern half of the United States, large bodies of the aborigines exist. In the north- ern portion of tlie United States, where labor disgraced a nian,^^ their race has almost passed away. ' They acquired “ The life of an Indian when at home in his village is a life of indo- lence and amusement. To the woman is consigned the labors of the household and the field ; she arranges the lodge ; brings wood for the fire ; cooks ; jerks venison and buffalo meat ; dresses the skins of the ani- mals killed in the chase ; cultivates the little patch of maize, pumpkins, and pulse which furnishes a great part of their provisions. ... As to the Indian women, . . . they would despise their husbands could they stoop to any menial office, and would think it conveyed an imputation upon their own conduct. It is the worst insult one virago can cast upon another in a moment of altercation. ‘ Infamous woman ! . . . I have seen your husband carrying wood into his lodge to make the fire. Where was his squaw that he should- be obliged to make a woman of himself V ” — W. Irving, Astoria (Works, Vol. 8), pp. 206, 207. “Mr. May made an address to an assembly of Onondaga Indians, including several chiefs. Ill the plainest terms he told them that, if they expected or desired to ]>rosper, they must overcome their contempt for hard work, and devote themselves to regular and constant industry. As soon as he ended and ‘paused for a reply,’ an old chief arose, with an expressive grunt of dis- gust, and stalked off in silent dignity. He was followed by all the other INDUSTRIAL CULTURE. 377 §iii.] the vices without the virtues of white men, and, within the lifetime of a man, have nearly perished from the width of a coiitinent.^^ Again, among their white successors, in the northern, or non-slaveliolding portion of the United States, industry has been reputable. In the southern portion slavery, wliile it existed, cast a stigma on labor. The migrating myriads of Europe have poured in ceaseless streams over the northern section of our country, while only excep- tional individuals have sought the south. That a country may prosper, industry must be esteemed. The bearing of industrious habits upon individual happiness attracts too little notice. The man or woman whose time is adequately occupied, acquires an efficiency, and, if the occupation be sufficiently diversified, a self- dependence, which idleness cannot give. The mind is protected also against hankering for excitement, physical or social, and is less a prey therefore to folly and vice. In a single respect tliis latter remark may be illustrated by the condition of modern Jews. Tlieir average morality is not above that of Christians ; yet their freedom from physical vices is mucli greater. A Jewish drunkard or ])auper is, in our own country, rarely met ; most probably because a Jewish idler is seldom seen, and if common report can be trusted, the houses of shame find few re- cruits among Jewish women. Aside, however, from protection against vice, habits of industry serve to develop and strengthen the chamcter, and, if the industry be physical without being excessive, liearers, until the olTending speaker was left entirely alone.” — Memoir of S. J. May, pp. 231, 232. Eighty years ago there stood at one end of the street on which the author lives a stockade fort enclosing a blockhouse and a private dwelling. In or near it were (August 10, 1794) fifteen white men, some of them with families. They constituted the white population of the count}^, and were gathered for safety near the fort, because the Indians had sent notice that the}’’ intended to clean them out. On that day two bo}^s whose father had just been fired upon were hurried into the fort. They are yet (A. D. 1874) enjoying a vigorous old age, but the Indians, from the Alle- ghanies to the Pacific, are in this latitude almost extinct. 378 JUDAISM AT DOME. [CH. xiir. to give such tone and buoyancy to the human frame that, in the absence, and sometimes even in spite, of constitu- tional impediment, the spirits become joyous, the sympa- thies quick, the energies untiring, and the capacity both of enjoyment and usefulness great. Overwork, of course, defeats all this, and creates in some a longing for physical stimulus. Modern occupations, even^hen physical, tax the mind more than in former times. The question of industrial education for the young demands attention • vastly beyond what it has received. The parent who wilfully, or through indifference, neglects to bring up a child in habits of industry and to familiarize it with waiting on itself and making itself useful, is com- mitting a crime against the child’s future welfare. Many difficulties stand at present in the way, some of which require combined effort for their removal,^^ while others merely claim from the parent good" sense, fidelity, and an appreciation of the object to be attained.^ Much could The mniiber of hours aud amount of studies in public schools render it a hardship towards most children to superadd home occupations. As a prerequisite to remedying this, school studies, especially for children under twelve years, or thereabouts, should be abbreviated. Habits of ])ersonal industry and self-help are seriously important, and should not be unduly sacrificed eveil to attainments at school. The absence of many fathers from home during a large part of each day interferes not only with their facilities for teaching industiy to their children, but with opportunity for studying their characters, keeping in sympathy with, and rightly directing them. Mitigation for this evil might be devised. Earnest attention should be called to it. While it exists, it devolves an additional duty on the mother. Improved machinery accomplishes much work formerly intrusted to juvenile hands. Thought and public effort should be devoted to the s)ibject, that this end not in juvenile idleness. Absence of refinement in the laboring classes, especially in those from Europe, causes aversion to such occupations as might seemingly put us on a par with coarseness. The only remedy is to difiuse refinement among the working classes. 23 A boy, though exposed by idleness to a greater variety of tempta- tions than his sister, has one great advantage over her. If he marries, he can, as clerk or junior partner, learn some occupation before endeavor- INDUSTIIIAL CULTURE. 379 § ni.] be effected by a cultivation of refinement in the laboring classes, tlius rendering associations with labor more pleas- ant. Ill our own country the laboring classes, though misled sometimes by the presentation of folly as wisdom, and of antagonism to employers as independence, are at- taining culture. Tlie impediments are in many localities light and diminishing. In continental Europe, however, the impediments are fearful, and among these is the mag- iiig to superintend it. The sister, if married, becomes the head of a household, and needs to superintend that of which she is perhaps totally ignorant. Incompetent superintendence makes the duty of domestics more trying, opening a door to friction and discontent. The relation between her and her feminine aids, instead of giving rise to lifelong endear- ments and interest in each other’s welfare, becomes an injury to charac- ter, causing or aggravating distaste for home superintendence on the one side, and for domestic service on the other. Familiarity in early life with household duties, under guidance of parents as to the best method of dealing with various disi)ositions, might have given a different aspect to these relations, and, if general throughout society, might make domes- tic service attractive to many who now shun it, though suffering for lack of employment. Europe suffers, though in a modified form, equally with America from this class of difficulties. More than thirty years ago, an old philan- thropist in continental Europe asked me to send him as a corrective half a dozen copies of Miss Sedgwick’s ‘‘ Live and Let Live,” remark- ing that half the plagues of life originated in miscomprehension between the lady of the house and her domestics. Comments on the subject at Frankfort, Geneva, and elsewhere, evinced that the evil w'as wide- spread. The charge which a judge was uttering from his judicial bench in Eng- land when arrested by death, claims attention over too wide a portion of the earth. “ Even to our servants we think perhaps we fulfil our duty when we perform our contract with them, — 'when we pay them their wages, and treat them with the civility consistent with our habits and feelings, — when we curb our temper and use no violent expressions to- wards them. But how painful is the thought that there are men and women growing up around us, ministering to our comfort and necessities, continually inmates of our dwellings, with whose affections and nature we are as much unacquainted, as if they w'ere the inhabitants of some other sphere.” — T. N. Talfourd, quoted in the Christian Register, Boston, April 15, 1854. JUDAISM AT KOME. 380 [CH. XIII. nitude of standing armies ^4 to the abatement of which philanthropy should devote every energy.^ The industry of a country may be aided or impeded by wise or unwise customs or legislation, and by the facility or difficulty of obtaining family homes Tho variety of 2^ The military establishments of continental Europe absorb young men by hundreds of thousands, thus devolving accumulated labor on the infirm, the old, and the women. Overwork bars self-culture. Exhaus- tion craves and finds mere animal recreation. Marriage is postponed to military seiwice. Laboring women^ without avenue to improved social standing, lack a chief incitement to self-respect. Young men removed from home-influence, and from occupations which might interest them, are aggregated into masses, a more easy prey to vice. In the larger cities the proportion of illegitimate births becomes frightful. As a step towards the desired end, two or three among even the minor powers in Europe might agree upon adding to their own rules of intercourse, and advocating for insertion into the laws of nations some such clause as the following ; — No nation unattacked has a right to make war, nor any community to subvert its own government by violence, without publishing a distinct statement of not merely good, but sufficient reasons for its action. Such a clause would not at first prevent, but merely impede, wars, and diminish their frequency. Each additional nation which subscribed the code, each step forward by public opinion, would i place bellicose govern* ments more at disadvantage. The only effectual remedy, however, must be a capacity for self-government in the people, and a control by them — the chief sufTerers in war — over international disputes. A mechanic, or laboring man, owner of a home, has a strong motive for earning and saving, that he may add to its comfort or beauty. A friend of the author was told by prominent factory-owners in England, that four days weekly was about as much as they could get out of their operatives. If so, inability of the working classes to acquire homes is })robably a silent discouragement to effort, and therewith, to self-respect. Tlie real estate of England is in few hands. Dismemberment, for sale, of beautiful patrimonies, interwoven with cherished family associations, might be a severe sacrifice on the part of her landholders. But if interest in the culture and elevation of their fellow-men should prompt them to it, a nobler example could hardly be given of Christian thoughtfulness for human welfare. To their children and descendants the companion- ship of cultured fellow-citizens would be a richer heritage than undi- minished acres. INDUSTRIAL CULTURE. 381 § ni.] influences which affect it should cause caution in deter- mining the respective weight of each. Yet there can be little doubt that industry was held in more respect by monotheism, and therefore by the communities which it influenced, than by heathenism.^^ The countries where monotheism had spread were the workshops of the Roman empire. In monotheistic writings a man’s occupation is often appended to his name.^" Paul, a scholar, worked at tent-making.^'^^ Josephus appeals to heathen cognizance of the fact, that mechanical occupations were largely in Jewish hands.2^ Philo mentions their workshops at Alexandria.2^ The industrial prosperity of the countries where they settled is attested by patrician desire of obtain- ing office there.^^ Cicero, as already quoted on p. 30, tes- tifles that Asia Minor was the portion of the republic where reason and diligence effect most.” Tacitus bears ^vitness to the peacefulness and wealth of Syria.^^ The Jews are mentioned by Dio Cassius as fabricators of arms lor the Romans.^^ Centuries after the Christian era we And adopted in Europe an industrial agency invented in Asia Minor, namely, windmills.^^ 2^* * See in Ch. VIII. at close of note 127, Patrician contempt for work- men. Mention is made of Joseph “ the carpenter ” (Matt 13, 5.5) ; ‘‘Simon the tanner” (Acts 9, 43; 10, 3-2); “Alexander the coppersmith” (2 Tim. 4, 14) ; “A(piila and Priscilla, tent-makers” (Acts 18, 2, 3). * Acts 18, 3. “The Talmnd makes it the duty of scholars to learn some mechanical art.” New Am. Cyclopaed. 14, p. 847, col. 1, art. Spinoza. ^ See in Ch. IV. note 6, Josephus, Against Apion^ 2, 39 (al. 40). Heathens “broke open even the workshops of the Jews.” — Philo, Against FlaccuSy 8, Bohn’s trans. Rulers for Syria and Egypt were appointed, not by the Senate, but by the emperors. The Senate supplied annually a governor to a large division of Asia Minor. Tlie wealth, and themfore the industry, of this province is well attested by the action of the Senate, which long treated it as the prize of consular senators (Tacitus, An. 3, 7l), according to the order in which they had been consuls. See citation and references in note 8. See in Ch. X. the first paragi’aph of note 133. ^ See Gibbon, ch. 61, note 65, Vol. 7, p. 379, Pliilada. edit. 1816, 382 JUDAISM AT KOME. [CII. XIIL § IV. Greek Culture a Result of Monotheism, Allusion lias already been made, pp. 367-371, to Greek culture as a result of monotheistic influence. A separate section is here devoted to the subject, in hope of thereby attracting to it a more minute scrutiny than the author can give. The Greek population of Asia Minor, Syria, and North Egypt attained a scientific and practical knowledge com- bined with general culture unknown among their Gentile cotemporaries. The liomans were dependent on the Greeks even for their cooks.^^ Deferring to a note the evidence that science had not taken root outside of these borders,^ the question arises as to its cause within them. Commerce was unlikely to do for Asia Minor or Syria more than for Greece. A mere blending of races would not develop intelligence in Asia rather than in Italy. There are but two causes for this culture which seem probable. Firstly, the Jews outside of Palestine must already, some centuries before the Christian era, have been not only educated, but scientific, for more than one eminent heathen regards them as descendants from, or on a par with, philosophers,^^ ,and their own writings imply the ex- See close of extract from Lyell in Ch. V. note 52. See A^^pendix, Note M. 30 The Wisdom of Sirach, compiled 200 or 300 b. c., contains the business direction (42, 7): “1 ^et delivery to, and receipt from, every one be in writing.” Writing must then have been common. An earlier writer says : “ Of making many books there is no end.” — IjCC. 12, 12. 37 “Clearchus, who was the scholar of Aristotle, and inferior to no one of the Peripatetics whomsoever, in his first book, Concerning Sleep, says, that ‘ Aristotle, his master, related what follows of a Jew. . . . This man . . . was by birth a Jew, and came from Coelesyria; these Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers. Philosophers, it is said, are called by the Indians Calani, and by the Syrians Judcei, and took their names from the countiy they inhabit, which is called Judcea. . . . Now, this man, when he was hospitably treated by a great man 3 % came down from the upper country to the places near to the sea, and became GREEK CULTURE. 383 § IV.] istence among tliem of attention to science.^® Tlie Jews had spread especially in the above-mentioned countries, a Grecian, not only in his language, but in his soul also ; insomuch tha*t when w’e ourselves happened to be in Asia about the same places whither he came, he conversed with us, and with other philosophical persons, and made a trial of our skill in philosophy ; and as he had lived with many learned men he communicated to us more information than he received from us.’” — Josephus, Against Ajnon, 1 , 22, Whiston’s trans. altered. Perhaps the conclusion should be translated, “he communicated the more readily of what he possessed.” The narrative cannot be any fabri- cation by a Jew, for in that case Jewish learning would not have been attributed to a heathen source. Clement of Alexandria {Strom. 1 , § 70; Potter, p. 358) quotes Clearchus as professing “acquaintance WITH [cognizance of?] some Jew who had associated with Aristotle.” Clement also quotes another writer as follows : “ Megasthenes, the historian [about b. c. 300], . . . writes thus in his third book of India Affairs: ‘All matters of natural science spoken of among the ancients [of our nation] are also taught by philosophers outside of Greece ; namel}", among the Hindoos by the Brahmins, and in Syria by those called Jews.’ ” — Strom. 1 , § 72 (Potter, p. 3G0). ^ “Honor a physician with the honor due unto him, . . . for the Lord hath created him. For of the Most High cometh healing. . . . The skill of the physician shall lift up his head ; and in the sight of great men he shall be in admiration. The Lord hath created medicines out of the earth ; and he that is wise will not abhor them. . . . AVith such doth he heal [men] and taketh away their pains. Of such doth the apothecary make a confection. . . . My son, in thy sickness, . . . give place to the physician, for the Lord hath created him : let him not go from thee, for thou hast need of him. There is a time when in their hands there is good success. For they shall also pray unto the Lord, that he would prosper that which they give.” — Sirach, 38, 1-14. The perception (implied Gen. 2, 21) of fewer ribs by one in man than in some domestic animals indicates anatomical observation. The Wisdom of Solomon is a work of uncertain date, written probably from one to three centuries before the Christian era. Its author, speak- ing in the name of Solomon, says, God “gave me reliable knowledge concerning the universe, to know the constitution of the world and operation of its elements; the beginning, end, and middle of years; the changes [of the sun’s course at each] of tlie tropics, and the vicissitudes of seasons; the cycles of years and the position of stars; the peculiari- ties of animals and the [various] dispositions of wild beasts ; the violence JUDAISM AT ROME. 384 [CH. XIII. and may have imparted more or less scientific knowledge to their Greek fellow-citizens. Secondly, J ews believed in a Supreme Being who took interest in human morality. Many Greeks accepted the belief.^^ It strengthened conscience and encouraged moral aims, thereby developing observation and reflection. These two qualities became the source of an independent growth. There is much in modern which may illustrate ancient history. Papal Pome has been as poor an exponent of Christian culture as was Jerusalem of Jewish. China, with no word in its vocabulary for conscience, or moral sense,^^ may throw light on the non-progressive condition of Greece, Eome, and other nations which monotheism had not visited, or from which it was driven out. of winds and the controversies of mortals; the varieties of plants and the [diverse] efficacy of roots.” — Wisdom of Sol. 7, 17-20. In a Prologue to the Wisdom of Sirach, its translator states as an object of his labor, “ to issue the book even to those of the foreign’ household [that is, to Gentiles] who wish to study and who are already prepared morally, rd to live according to the Law,” and gives As a motive which had actuated his graildfather, the need “that students should, in their teaching and writing, be useful to those outside.” Cp. Cc. III., IV., and Note B, footnotes 43, 44. Justin evidently {fiidh 80, 122) deemed these converts to Judaism a large class. A friend, the president of Allegheny College in this place, has,, at the author’s request, reduced the following statement to writing: “In the year 1850 I visited the city of Shanghai, China, and had an iiiter- view with Rev. W. H. Medhurst, D. D., who told me that he had been studying the Chinese language for thirty years, and had fouiid no word in that language which was a synonyme of our English word ‘ conscience,’ or moral sense.” — Geo. Loomis. Cp. p. 576, n. 53; see also, on p. 29, the absence from Greek and Latin literature, prior' to monotheistic influ- ence, of any term for “conscience.” The question would be interesting, whether any heathen language, utterly devoid of monotheistic influence, have such a term. A difficulty confronting inquirers would be uncer- tainty as to'^the extent of former monotheistic influence, especially in Asia, and as to the date of any ancient literature. On this latter point an error of centuries, in the commonly affixed dates, would, in the ab- sence or unreliability of chronological data, be possible. GREEK CULTURE. 385 § IV.] Particular localities may hold forth inducements to lovers of money or pleasure, whereof only the intelligent can avail themselves, and in such localities intelligence and deficiency of moral sense may be common associates ; even as ignorance and vice hold almost exclusive sway in others. Seasons of speculation may present temptation only to the intelligent ; and among them only will tlie moral failures occasioned by it be found. Yet, if the author’s observation have not deceived him, the average morality of intelligent individuals is decidedly above that of the ignorant. On this point the testimony which he’ places- below has much weight in his own mind. Morality and general intelligence in every nation bear a tolerably fixed ratio to each other. By intelligence must not, however, be understood merely the prevalence of school education. In Northern Germany, whose scliool system is reputed inferior to none, intelligence and men- tal activity are much less common among the masses and My father communicated to me, as the result of his experience, that the disposition to dishonesty is most common among the unintelligent, though they set more bunglingly about it. He had large opportunity of observation, for, as agent and as proprie- tor, he superintended during half a century (1805 - 1854) landed property in four different counties. There were times of active purchase, when two thousand contracts on file implied an equal number of settlers who had not yet paid for their lands. A visitor from continental Europe said, that in the Land Office he could see more of human nature in one day than in his father’s counting-house during a year. My father’s judgment was attested by his reducing disorder to order, and by success in meeting the many difficulties incident to his position. Long-continued indulgence was necessary towards the less fortunate; steady, though gentle, pressure towards the idle, who without it would liave failed to acquire homes. Judicious inquiry, patient thought, and discriminating judgment were requisite in distinguishing between the two classes and the modifications of them. Another quality, important to his work though not to the value of his opinion, was brought to my notice by a white-headed old settler, who, on hearing of his death, called upon me and remarked, that he “never knew any one who had such a knack of encouraging a fellow.” JUDAISM AT ROME. 386 [CH. XIII. even in the middle classes, than throughout the northern portion of the United States.^^ A companionship, in most cases, of morality with in- telligence implies some relationship between them. On the nature of this relationship the author has already, in the first section of this chapter, given his views. The rise of Greek culture, dating from the advent of monotheism, favors strongly the supposition, that a sense of moral re- sponsibility stimulates intelligence, and that belief in an all-seeing Moral liuler encourages human efforts. The non-progressive character of China, in spite of its univer- sal school education,^^ corroborates the supposition. So do the teachings of modern history, as recalled by the author. On this point, however, modern history needs a During a sojourn in Germany more than thirty years ago, the author met five different individuals, of the middle class, who supposed that Americans w'ere all black. The fifth instance occurred at the table of a friend who had discredited his previous experience, ascribing it to lack of discrimination on his part between the uneducated and those from whom knowledge might be expected. The absence of general intelligence is partly, though not wholly, due to impediments (see note 7) which dis- courage private effort. School education is but an instrument for self- development. If, after receiving it, the hands of a community be so tied as to prevent its use, the instrument becomes of no avail. The best portions of the United States have in many ways great room for improvement ; yet the extent to which they safel}'’ dispense with police protection, strikingly illustrates one feature of their moral progress. In A. D. 1865 a million soldiers, trained on the battle-field, were disbanded in the Northern States without police precaution and without causing the slightest apprehension to man, woman, or child. “In no country of the world is education so general as in China. Though the government fosters only the higher branches by supporting colleges {liio-kung) in the large cities and provincial capitals, while the primary schools are sustained only by municipalities or individuals, the knowledge of reading, writing, and arithmetic is all but universal. Even the lowest peasant or mechanic knows how to keep his account-books. . . . Female education is more limited than that of men, but literary attainments are considered creditable to a woman, and the number of authoresses is by no means small. Printed books are cheaper in China than elsewhere, notwithstanding the clumsiness of the printing appara- tus.” — New Amer. Cyclopaedia, Yol. 5, p. 105, art. China, THE DARK AGES. 387 § V.] scrutiny more discriminating, thorough, and dispassionate tlian any to which it has yet been sul)jected. Mankind find themselves on a comparative sandspeck floating amidst what seems a limitless universe. Their study of physical law extends to distances which hafHe comprehension. Their study of moral law has hitherto been confined to the little globe which they inhabit, and even its lessons liave been very imperfectly learned. Yet most minds would be aided far more by a perception of moral purpose than of physical law, in believing that a Moral Ituler sways the universe. The amount of hope, happiness, and improvement dependent on such belief is a good reason for patient investigation of liuinan liistory. § V. The Dark Arjcs. The dark ages in Europe liave been commonly attrib- uted to inroads of the barbarians. This must lie incorrect. These inroads date from the fifth century. The last Latin writers of note in Italy were born in the first century, and we find already in the second century unmistakable evidence of that social and political barbarism against Avhich even in the preceding one civilization was ineffect- ually struggling. This barbarism was due to the political power of the Uoinan aristocracy and to their depraving use of it. The so-called barbarian leaders Avere more civilized than their Italian subjects. Under their rule Italy was improved rather than injured. The reason Africa, less influenced by patricianism, produced from a. D. 175 to A. D. 425 with lesser writers, Tertullian, Arnobius, Lactantius, noted for bis pure Latinity, and Augustine, — all Christians. Even GauTs nionotlKiistic section had during this period more writers than Italy. “Odoacer . . . compelled Augustulus to abdicate. . . . By tins act an end was put to the western empire. . . . He ruled the country mildlj% enforced the laws, and protected the frontiers.” — New Amer. Cyclopaedia, 12, p. 488. Theodoric “defeated Odoacer . . . Under his fostering care Italy be- came prosperous again ; agriculture and industry revived ; literature and the fine arts flourished ; internal improvements went on and new monu- ments were erected.” — New Amer. Cyclopaedia, 15, p. 422, col. 1. Theodoric in early life had lived amidst Greek culture. 388 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. XIV. wliy monotheism failed to improve mankind as formerly was its union with ecclesiastical and political power, so that it was expounded, not by the unambitious and thoughtful, but by the egotistical and seltish who were able to crush out those right-minded views which inter- fered with their ambition or interest. CHAPTER XIV. MONOTHEISif. § I. Its Origin. 1. Some monotheistic writers regard belief in a Su- preme Being as inherent in mankind, so that only excep- tional individuals can divest themselves of itd The history of our race affords no support to this view. 1 The above view — blended by many with an estimate of heathenism more generous than just — has-l)een metrified by Pope : — “ Father of all ! in every age, In every clime adored, By saint, by savage, and by sage, Jehovah, Jove, or Lord ! ” One of our widely circulated school-books states that : ‘‘In all nations and in all ages the untauglit mind of man has sought after God, a first great cause. . . . This has given rise to various systems of religion.” — Mitchell, Neiv Intermediate Geog. p. 14, Phil. 1874. Stoic views, whose origin was unknown, contributed largely no doubt to this error, but its chief source has been a too ready assumption that ideas co-extensive with our personal observation are universal. The same method of inference leads one of Cicero’s speakers to treat belief in a ])lurality of gods and in their human form as universal, and therefore in- nate. Epicurus “ perceived firstly, that gods exist, because Nature her- sjcdf had hnpressed an idea of them in the minds of all; . . . a belief in gods is necessary because we have implanted, or rather innate, knowl- edge of them, . . . and concerning their form we are instructed partly by nature, . . . for we all, of every nation, have by nature no other form for the gods than the human.” — Cicero, De Nat. Deor. 1, 16-18, al. 43 - 46 . Compare Ch. III. note 11. ORIGIN OF MONOTHEISM. 389 Various savage tribes — if evidence can be trusted — are destitute of any religion,^ and a large proportion of man- 2 “ The situation of the missionary among the Bechuanas is i^eculiar. . . . He seeks in vain to find a temple, an altar, or a single emblem of heathen worship. No fragments remain of former days, as mementoes to the present generation, that their ancestors ever loved, served, or reverenced a being greater than man. . . . Satan . . . has employed his agency, with fatal success, in erasing every vestige of religious impres- sion from the minds of the Bechuanas, Hottentots, and Bushmen. . . . Dr. Vanderkemp, in his account of the Kafirs, makes the following re- mark : ‘ If by religion we mean reverence for God, or the external action by which that reverence is expressed, I never could perceive that they had any religion, nor any idea of the existence of a God. ... A decisive proof of the truth of what I here say with respect to the national atheism of the Kafirs is, that they have no word in their language to ex- press the idea of the deity.’ “ Among the Bechuana tribes, the name [for God] adopted by the mis- sionaries is Morimo. . . . Morimo . . . had been r(*presented by rain- makers and sorcerers as a malevolent selo, or thing, which the nations in the north described as existing in a hole, and which, like the faiiies in the Highlands of Scotland, sometimes came out and inflicted diseases on men and cattle, and even caused death. ** Morimo did not then convey to the minds of those who heard it the idea of God. ... I never once heard that Morimo did good, or was capable of doing so. More modern inquiries among the natives might lead to the supposition that he is as powerful to do good as he is to do evil ; and that he has as great an inclination for the one as for the other. It will, however, be found that this view of his attributes is the result of tw’enty-five years’ missionary labor ; the influences of which in that, as well as in other respects, extend hundreds of miles be}’ond the immediate sphere of the missionary.” — Moffat, Missionary Labors in Southern Africa, N. Y. pp. 168, 177, 179, 180. “ The aborigines of Australia, Dr. Lang states in his work on ‘Queens- land,’ have no idea of a supreme divinity, the creator and governor of the world, the witness of their actions, and their future judge. They have no objects of worship, even of a subordinate or inferior rank. They have no idols, no temples, no sacrifices. In short, they have nothing whatever of the character of religion, or of religious olxservance, to dis- tinguish them from the beasts that perish.” — Christian Register (Bos- ton), September 21, 1861. “So far as my information goes, the religious notions of the Esqui- 390 JUDAISM AT KOME. [CH. XIV. kind lack belief in a Creator or Euler of the universe.^ Early imbibed opinions have been mistaken for inherent.^ 2. A different view attributes the origin of monotheism to human observation and reasoning. The universe ex- hibits evidence of design which it seems impossible to treat as the work of chance, and which cannot be ascribed satisfactorily to any cause save intelligence. The argu- ment from this evidence is powerful,^ and admits no direct answer, yet human history shows that it can be outweighed, and that it universally has been outweighed in communities destitute of belief in revelation. No community lacking a belief in revelation has ever believed in a Creator and Moral Euler of the universe.^ Men must have been unable to credit that such a being, if he ex- isted, would avoid or neglect communication with his earthly children. 3. Yet another view is that monotheism was first maux extend only to the recognition of supernatural agencies, and to certain usages by which they may be conciliated. . . . “ . . . The walrus, and perhaps the seal also, is under the protective guardianship of a special representative or prototype, who takes care that he shall have fair play.” — Kane, Arctic Explorations^ Vol. 2, pp. 118, 214 ; X. Y., 1857. Compare New Am. Cyclopaedia (11, p. 148), article Manitou. ^ “ There is in Buddhism neither creation nor creator. ... It [Buddhism] embraces nearly or quite . . . three hundred millions of human beings.” — J. F. Clarke, Ten Religions^ pp. 143, 146. Greek and Latin mythologies also ignore any creator. Compare in Ch. I. § il. the absence of any term for a Supreme Being in Chinese. * All our belief begins with the testimony of others. . . . The man born in China believes in Confucius. . . . Every one born a Turk be- lieves in Mohammed. . . . The vast majority of Trinitarians, Unitarians, E])iscopalians, Methodists, Quakers, are so because they w'ere born so. . . . We begin with a traditional belief which we accept without a doubt.” — J. F. Clarke, Hour which Cometh^ p. 47. Stationary communities not merely begin with but retain their traditional belief. ^ See Ch. III. notes 57, 59. ® “ There are three religions which teach . . . true monotheism. These . . . are Judaism, Christianity, and Mohammedanism.” — J. F. Clarke, Ten Religions^ p. 501. ORIGIN OF MONOTHEISM. 391 § 1 .] taiiglit by revelation. In favor of this view are the fol- lowing considerations. The people among whom mono- theism originated ascribe it, not to their own wisdom, but to a divine communication. Further, no community de- void of belief in revelation has ever been monotheistic. Further, God, as represented in Jewish teaching, takes an interest in the moral welfare of our race. Tlie immense importance to mankind of acquaintance with such a being justifies the supposition that he would have imparted a knowdedge of himself by revelation, whilst the history of men elsewhere renders intensely improbable that any pretended revelation, in a previously heathen community, should have been mainly addressed by its author to our moral sense; To a believer in the divine authorization of Jesus there is yet another reason for believing in an earlier revelation to tlie Jews, namely, that Jesus assumes it to have been made. The sacerdotal and ceremonial parts of Judaism were probably, as in the case of Christianity, a later addition, of human origin. Tlie Jewish, equally with tlie Christian revelation, seems to have mainly addressed moral sense and human need of encouragement.’^ That the sacrificial law formed originally no part of it, is strongly attested by extant statements and appeals of religious instructors before the Captivity.® Teaching subsequent to the Cap- Compare CIi. II. notes 2, 9 and 10. ® Teachings befoke the Captivity in Babylon. “ I hate, I despise your feasts. When ye offer me burnt-oflerings and flour offerings, I will not accept them ; And upon the thank-offerings of jmur fatlings I will not look. Did ye offer me sacrifices and offerings In the wilderness, for forty years, 0 house of Israel V ” — Amos 5, 21-25. “ For I spake not to your fathers, nor commanded them Concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices. At the time when I brought them out of the land of Egypt; But this command gave 1 to them: JUDAISM AT ROME. 392 [CH. XIV. tivity implies that this law had then acquired a more recognized standing.^ * Hearken,’ said I, ‘ to my voice, • • • • • And walk ye in all the ways which I command you.’ ” — Jeremiah 7 , 22, 23. “ 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,” Isaiah 1, 11. “ For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God rather than burnt-offerings.” — Hosea 6, 6. “ I will take no bullock from thy house. Nor he-goat from thy folds ; If I were hungry, I would not tell thee.” •— Psalm 50, 9, 12. “ Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, And bow myself before the most high God V Shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, With calves of a year old ? Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams. Or with ten thousands of rivers of oil ? • • • • t He hath showed thee, 0 man, what is good; What doth Jehovah require of thee, But to do justly, and to love mercy, And to walk humbly before thy God ? ” — Micah 6, 6 - 8. “In sacrifice and oblation thou hast no pleasure; Mine ears thoii hast opened; Burnt-offering and sin-offering thou requires! not.” — Psalm 40, 6. “ Look well to thy feet, when thou goestto the house of God, and draw nigh to hear, rather than to offer sacrifice as fools. For they consider not that they do evil.” — Ecclesiastes, 5, l. The above passages are given in the translation of Dr. Noyes. 9 Teaching after the Captivity. “ For when ye bring the blind for sacrifice, [Ye say] ‘ It is not evil.’ And w^hen ye offer the lame and the sick, [Ye say] ‘ It is not evil.’ And ye bring that which is plundered, and lame, and sick, And present it for an offering; Shall I accept it at your hand? Saith Jehovah. ORIGIN OF MONOTHEISM. 393 §^] To assume that the ceremonial and sacrificial law had no recognized standing before the Babylonian Captivity, implies that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses. It nowliere professes to have been written by him, and speaks of him always in the third person, a form of self-designation not elsewhere found, I believe, in Hebrew literature. Its commencement is a compilation from two different documents, — or classes of documents, — either of which must have originated later than the belief in monotheism, since that belief is incorporated into tliern.^^ Its conclusion must have been written long after the time of Mosesd^ To a critic of history the strongest argument against its Mosaic authorship is the moral impossibility, tliat the anti-ritual writers before the Captivity could have known and ignored or disparaged teachings by Moses which they and their countrymen would have re^ garded as express injunctions from God. A believer in the divine authorization of Jesus would find it difficult to reconcile his remarks to liis disciples with tlie suppo- sition that he regarded tlie Deity as having through Moses prohibited certain meats.^^ Cursed be the deceiver, Wlio has in his flock a male, And yet voweth and sacrificeth to Jehovah that which is marred.” , Malachi 1, 8, 13, 14, Noyes’s trans. “Ye have robbed me. But ye say, ‘ Wherein have we robbed thee V ’ In tithes and offerings. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse. That there be food in my house.” — Malachi 3, 8 - 10, Noyes’s trans. See Appendix, Note L. “So Moses . . . died, . , . but no man knowetli of liis sepulchre to this day.” — Deut. 34, 5, 6. 12 “Are you likewise so devoid of understanding? Do you not com- prehend that nothing external can, by entering a man, defile him, because it does not enter his heart ? ” — Mark 7, is, 19. Graves, in his “Lectures on the Four last Books of the Pentateuch” (7th edit. London, 1846), has given, on pp. 439-452, Le Clerc’s citations from the Pentateuch in proof of its post- Mosaic origin. 394 JUDAISM AT ROME. [CH. XIV. § II. Judaism a Preparation for Christianity. The nature and extent of the preparation made for Christianity by Judaism have never been sufficiently stated. Judaism had at the Christian era carried mono- theism and morality into a number of lands. The com- munities which received these two elements of improve- ment had become noted for intelligence and prosperity. With intelligent morality, however, comes a spirit of scrutiny. Any historical evidence of a revelation made to the Jews was obscured by time and the imperfection of human records. Evidence from the character of J ew- ish teaching was impaired by the extent to which human error had been blended with the recorded teaching of rev- elation. At this period — when intelligent beings craved sufficient evidence for the existence of a Divine Parent — a teacher appeared who professed himself authorized by God. If such authorization admit proof, this would seem to have been supplied in the case of Jesus. The evidence was trusted and his teachings found chief ac- ceptance in those countries where monotheism, the result of Jewish teaching, had previously done most for human improvement. In Asia Minor Pliny was astounded at the prevalence of Christianity. Syria and North Egypt were seats of its early strength. The fact that the writ- ings which constitute the New Testament were, with the exception of Matthew, composed in Greek, indicates that the earliest Christian teachers found their disciples among those Gentile populations who were most familiar with Judaism, and whose intelligence best fitted them to scru- tinize the claims of Christianity. 1 APPENDIX. APPEI^DIX. NOTE A. SIBYLLINE BOOKS. § I. Tlio^e called Cumoean; a Patrician Forger }j. B. (7. 461 - B. C, 83. Nearly fifty years after the expulsion of kings from Rome, a Tribune of the people (n. c. 4G2) proposed the appointment of commissioners to prepare a code of laws,^ whereby the con- sular power siiould have some other limit tlian the pleasure of the consuls. The proposition, defeiTed at tliat time, was renewed the next year, and was supported by the wliole col- lege of Tribunes. Probaldy the resident foreigners sided with the popular party ; for the Duumviri Bacrorum, or “ Commit- tee of Two on Sacred Tilings,’’ who belonged to the aristo- cratic faction, professed to have consulted “ Books,” according to which, ‘Mangers were predicted from gatlierings of foreign- ers, lest they should make an attack on some of the heights in the city, and thence commit slaughter.” ^ The popular party regarded the statement as an imposition, and the Duumviri “ were accused by the Tribunes of having gotten the thing up merely to hinder the law.”® If books existed which contained any such prediction, they were doubtless a political forgery for the occasion. Perhaps, however,* the forgery of what was afterwards called The Books, ^ or, still later perhaps, the Sibylline Books, did not occur until the Duumviri found it necessary to justify their 1 Livy, 3, 9 . ^ Livy, 3, 10. 3 Ibid. ^ Tlie Latin language lias no definite article corresponding to ‘‘The,” hut it is plain that in after times a command by the Senate to examine “IBooks” meant an examination of “The Books,” which were officially guarded. 396 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. assertion. These Books, in after times, seem to have been interpolated at the pleasure of the patrician leaders whenever their sanction was wished for brutality w'hich should over- awe^ or mummery which should quiet® the common people, ^ During Hannibal’s campaigns in Italy strife ran very high between the patricians and the plebeians. After the battle of Cannse, B. c. 216, “the Duumviri were ordered [by the Senate] to examine [The] Books. . . . According to [the] Fate-telling Books certain extraordinary sacrifices were performed, among which a Gaulish man and woman [his wife ?] and also a Greek man and woman [his wife ?] were lowered alive in the ox- market into a subterranean place, which was closed with a stone.” — Livy, 22, 57. This act of outrageous barbarism is also naiTated in an extract from Dio Cassius, ])reserved by Isaac Tzetzis, which speaks of the Bomans, under Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, as “burying a Grecian and Gaulish married pair, being frightened [thereto] by an oracle, which said that a Greek and a Gaul would [endeavor to] seize the city.” — Dio Cass., ed. Sturz. Vol. 1, ]). 14. Fabius Maximus, named Verrucosus from a wart on his lip, was consul seventeen years before, and also the next year after, the battle of Cannae, and was Dictator in the year preceding it. Either of these dates would imply a different year from that assigned to the event by Livy; but Fabius, even when not in office, may have con- trolled senatorial action to such an extent that it should be attributed to him. ® In the year B. c. 399, “a rough winter . . . was followed by an un- healthy summer, pestilential to all animals. As neither a cause nor a termination could be found for this incurable destruction, the Sibylline Books were examined by a senatoi'ial decree. [In accordance with these books] the ‘Duumviri for Sacred Things’ having for the first time made a feast for the gods, Lectistei'niuon, in the city of Rome, pacified, during eight days, Apollo, Latona and Diana, Hercules, Mercury, and Neptune, by means of three table-couches provided as bountifully as possible.” — Livy, 5,13. The attractiveness of this was increased by the general feasting, in which the people were expected to join. Again, in B. c. 348, a pestilence occasioned an inspection of these books and another feast of the gods. Livy, 7, 27. And yet again, during a pesti- lence, “it was found in ‘[The] Books’ that Esculapius [the god of med- icine] .should be sent for from Epidaurus to Rome.” — Livy, 10, 47. On another occasion we read, “In Rome and the vicinity many prodigies oc.curred that winter, or, as is usual when superstitious feara are once awakened, many were reported and incautiously believed. . . . The Duumviri were commanded to examine ‘[The] Books.’ . . . First, a lustration of the city was held, and victims of the more important kind were sacrificed to particular deities. Forty pounds of gold were carried as a gift to the temple of Juno at Lanuvium. The matron.s dedicated a brazen standard to Juno on the Aventine mount. A feast for the gods was commanded to be held at Csere, ... a feast to the goddess of youth at Rome, . . . and Cains Atilius Serranus, the pretor, was ordered to assume vows, [to be performed] if at the end of ten years the Republic remained in the same condition as then. These things performed and vowed in accordance with the Sibylline Books, removed in a great degree THOSE CxVLLED CUM^AN. 397 §i] or for political chicanery'^ of whatever kind, if favorable to their own party. the superstitious fears from men’s minds.” — Livy, 21, 6-2. This was in time of war. Some details of the performance are omitted. Again, in the year b. c. 181, prodigies and a pestilence caused a decree that the Decemvii*s should examine “[The] Books.” The Decemvirs ordered “supplications for one day at all the shrines in Rome ” — Livy, 40 , 19 . Probably the pestilence and the alarm of the people continued, since, “by the direction of the same [Decemvirs] iisdcm auctoribus, the Senate decreed, and the consuls proclaimed, that suy)plication and sacrifices should be made for three days throughout all Italy.'' — Ibid. As the authority of the Decemvirs rested exclusively on “The Books” which they consulted, their direction fairly implies that in these lx)oks, written j)rofcssedly when Horne had no control over Italy, they had found author- ity for this senatorial decree. - An instance of this occurred, B. c. 205, which needs a word of ex]da- nation. The Homan army was rapidly dwindling in front of the Cartha- ginians from disease, which threatened to extenninate it. (Livy, 29, 10.) The Senate must have needed the assistance of the whole people in order to pi-osecute the war, and must have found that burying Gauls and Greeks alive was not the most eflicacious method of conciliating those important elements of their ])opulation. There existed at this time a large settle- ment of Gauls in Asia Minor, in what was called Gallogra’cia , Gaulish Greece, or Galatia., Gaulish Asia, a province adjoining on the nor th side of Phrygia and Cappadocia, and which liad once constituted a jjart of Phrygia. These Gauls were the descendants of a force — the rernairrs of tliat under Brenrrus — which had corrquer’ed, and settled in, a jiortion of Phrygia, wher*e their language a])pears to have beerr yrer-petuated with hardly arry charrge until, at least, the fourth century; for Jeronre says (0pp. edit. Vallars. Vol. 7 , yrp. 429, 430), that it was then the satire as that spoken at Treves. In the soirthwest of Galatia was a city called Pessimrs, — subsequently the capital of one half of the yuovince, — and near this city was a large stone, or rock, which had become an object of worship, a renrnant doubtless of Druidism, on the part of the Gauls. From them it must have i*eceived its nanre of Agdistis; though it had another rrame, — “The Id^ean ^Iotheb,” — given to it evidently by Gr'eeks, and pr-obably in jest. Perhaps it rested on some hill which they had called Blount Ida. The Honran Senate, havirrg at this juncture or- dered an investigation of the Sibylline Books, not, pr’ofessedly, because of the critical military condition, but because of certain falling stones, did not apparently find anything concerning the stones, but found a statement that, “ \Vhenever a foreign enemy waged war’ on Italian soil, he could be di’iven fi’om Italy and conquer ed, if the Idrearr ^lother should be br’ought from Pessirrus to Horne.” — Livy, 29, 10. An embassy was accordingly sent with much pomp to Asia Elinor. To guar’d against wounding the national pride of Gr-eek residents at Home, it stopped at Delphi, the seat of the renowned Greek oracle. Already before its de- parture GIFTS had been sent to this oracle, and a response retunred that the Romans were about to gain such a victory that they could not caray away the spoils. When the embassy arrived the accommodating oracle assured them that Kirrg Attains would put them in possession of 398 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. It was of coarse necessary to give some account of these Books, and the story of their sale by a woman to a Roman king ^ was perhaps the best which the patricians found them- what they wanted, and that the best Roman citizen must be ready to receive the goddess on her arrival. King Attains “having received the embassy cordially, took them to Pessinus in Phrygia, and gave them a SACRED STONE wliicli the inhabitants pronounced to be ‘the mother of the gods,’ and ordered it to be sent to Rome.” — Iiivy, 29, 11. The priests of this stone at Rome, as in Asia Minor, either were, or were called, Gain, Gauls. It was perhaps anticipated that the Gauls at Rome would take pride in the power attributed to a divinity of their own na- tion, and would be anxious that her credit should not be impaired by any further defeat to the Romans. The priests, or attendants, of this stone, Idccce nnatris famuli, were the only ones at Rome who (Cicero, De Lcgihus, 2, 0, 16 ; al. 22, 40) had the privilege of begging ; a tolera- bly satisfactory evidence that they were not selected from aristocratic circles, and sugge.sting suspicion that after the stone had answered its })olitical object, the Senate did not care to expend much upon its wor- ship. The temjde of the bheaii Mother was not dedicated until thirteen years after she (?) had reached Rome, and then, perhaps, a war with a tribe of Gauls, and an impending war with Antiochus (Livy, 36, 36), may have quickened in the Senate a sense of its importance. The priesthood of this stone seems to have continued at Pessinus; since members of it, some fifteen years later than the above-mentioned embassy, met the Roman army, and prophesied its victory over the then retreating Gauls. (Livy, 38,* 18.) This and the allusion by Arnobius (5, o) to the stone’s “unheard of kSize ” might mise suspicion that the Roman ambassadors had contented themselves with some more portable rock, and had left the original one where it previously stood. ® “ It is said that under the reign of Tarquin [the proud] another very wonderful piece of good fortune befell the city of the Romans through the benevolence of some god or [good] demon, which, not for a brief period only, but during the city’s whole existence, often saved us from great evils. A certain woman, not of his own dominions, came to the king, wishing to sell him nine books full of Sibylline oracles. As Tarquin declined paying the ])i-ice asked by her, she went off and burned three, and shortly returned, offering to sell the others for the same price. Being regarded as silly, and laughed at for offering the smaller number at what she could not obtain for the larger, she again went off and burned the half of what remained, and returned, asking the same amount of money for the three. Tarquin, wondering at her resoluteness, sent for his diviners, and narrating the affair, asked what he should do. They, learning through certain signs that a god-given blessing had been re- jected, and explaining to him that his not purchasing all the books was a great misfortune, commanded him to pay the woman her price, and to take the oracles which were left. The woman, therefore, giving him the books, and telling him to guard them carefully, disappeared from among men.” — Dionys. Halicarnas. 4, 62. At the close of the nar- rative, part only of which is here cited, Dionysius sa}^s that he is merely quoting from VaiTO. Whether this remark applies to the foregoing, as well as to the latter part of his narrative, I am uncertain. Lactantius, §!•] THOSE CALLED CUM^AN. 399 selves able to invent. Whether this tale was coeval with the forgery, and whether the woman was originally styled Sibylla, may be doubted. Mad the forgers originated a definite ac- count of the books, there would probably have been less dis- crepance in subsequent narratives. The earliest allusion to Sibylla (for the name originally designated but one person) occurs in the writings of Aristophanes, a comedian, about forty years after the above-mentioned appeal to “ Books,” and almost a century after expulsion of kings from Borne. Plato some years later also mentions her. She may have been a then existing celebrity, or some tradition of Sibylla, a wise woman, may have existed at Cumse, which was a commercial metropolis before Rome was more than an unimportant town.^ The patricians, when pushed to the wall, may have availed themselves of it in accounting for their forger}". No v/ritings of this lady seem to have been heard of in Italy or elsewhere outside of the Roman archives ; and nothing can be more manifest than that those inside were manufactured by sena- torial leaders as occasion required. 'Idiat the leaders of the popular party should object to the sole custodianship of such books being in the hands of their opponents is natural ; and this, ])erhaps, caused a trifling con- cession on the i)art of the latter, namely, that to the Duumviri should be added as servants two common people, in whose presence, if at all, the books must be inspected.^^ That this insufficient concession should not quiet the popular leaders, and that they should desire to scrutinize the books, is suppos- able enough. The effort to ward off such scrutiny may have caused the patricians to invent the story that a former keeper who also piofesses to copy Varro, says that the books were offered to Tar(jiiiiiius Piiscus. The elder Pliny, who was later than Varro or Dionysius, says, “All agree (?) that Sibylla brought tiiuek books to Tanpiin the Proud, of wliich two were burnt by herself, and the third in the age of Sylla, in the conflagration of the Capitol.” — Pliny, Nat. Hist. 13 , 27 (al. i;3). ® See in the New American Cyclopaedia the article Cumce. The allusions to Sibylla will be found in Aristophanes, Eirene {Peacc)^ lines 1096, 1117, and in Plato, Stallbaum’s edit. Vol. 8, p. 392; Bohn’s trans. Vol. 4 , p. 406. Tarquin, selecting two distinguished citizens and joining to them two plebeians as servants, intrtisted to them the care of the books. “ One of these [distinguished citizens] proving in some way unfaithful to his trust, and being informed upon by one of the jOebeians, [the king] sewing him into a leather sack, as if he were a parricide, cast him into the sea. “After the expulsion of the kings, the city taking charge of the oracles 400 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. of them had for infidelity to his trust been sewed into a sack and drowned.^^ In the account of him it is noteworthy that his accuser is made to be one of the servant commoners. Regarded from this point of view, the jealous seclusion of the books could not be charged on the patricians as a mere party procedure. They would say that the effort to punish a viola- tion of this seclusion had come from the party of their oppo- nents, and must be regarded as evincing the common opinion of the time w^hen it occurred. About the year b. c. 367 (following Smith’s chronology) ten men were chosen for the care of these books, one half of whom were plebeians, and not apparently servants. This took place during a prolonged and hard struggle between the two fac- tions,^^ and must have been but a nominal protection to the popular party, since the books were in a building controlled by the Senate. The five plebeians might be present wdien an examination was made, and might find themselves the unwill- ing witnesses to some passage which had been previously in- terpolated. Still later the number was increased to fifteen, a change conjecturally attributed to Sylla. If he were the author of it, we may be sure that as the number could not be equally divided, the patricians would have the advantage. Julius Csesar added a sixteenth, perhaps to restore equilib- rium ; but the addition was probably dropped again, for the name Quindecemvirs w^as the one in subsequent use. Our materials for Roman history come so exclusively from patrician sources, that we have insufficient means of know- ing the views of intelligent plebeians concerning these “ Books.” On one occasion, wdiat seems to have been a coun- ter-forgery was gotten up, whether as a mere burlesque on appointed as their guardians the most prominent men, who hold tliis charge during life, being exempt from military service and other civil duties ; and they add to them plebeians, without whom it is not lawful to the men to make an inspection of the oracles.” — Dionys. Halicarnas. 4, 62. ‘‘King Tarquin commanded that Marcus Tullius, the Duumvir, should be sewed in a sack and cast into the sea, because, being bribed, he had given for transcription to Petronius Sabinus ‘a book’ (or perhaps ‘ the book ’) which contained the sacred secrets pertaining to the state ; and this kind of punishment w^as long afteiAvards adopted by the law against ])aiTicides. ” — Valerius Maximus, 1, 1, 13. Compare the first paragraph of an extract from Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the preced- ing note. Livy, 6, 42. 1^ Dio Cassius, 42, 51, THOSE CALLED CUM.L:aN. 401 that of the Senate, or for some political object, cannot be cer- tainly determined. It was evidently unfavorable to senatorial prejudices, since the Senate ordered it to be bunied. The Tribunes of the People may have thought that they would lose more than they could gain by defending it.^* In the year b. c. 83 the Capitol was destroyed by fire, and The reader by returning to note 6 will find that in B. c. 181 a pesti- lence was raging, and that the remedy first tried, though professedly from [The] Books, seems to have proved insufficient, and to have been followed by an additional remedy of the same kind taken from the same source. The remedies were open to scientific criticism, and the necessity for a second implied apparently a mistake by these infallible books in dictating the first. '‘That same year, on the farm of Lucius Petillius, the scril>e, near the Janiculum, in cultivating the earth deeply, two stone chests were found, each almost eight feet long and four broad, the covers being bouml with lead. Each chest was inscribed with Latin and Greek letters [according to which] Numa Pompilius, son of Pompo, was buried in the one ; in the other were the books of Xuma Pompilius. When the owner, a(ding by advice of friends, had opened the chests, that which bore the title of the burled king was found empty, without vestige of human body or of any- thing, time having consumed the whole contents. In the other, two packages, with waxed wrappings, contained seven books each, not only entire, but fresh in api)earance. Seven in Latin were concerning Pon- tifical law. Seven in Greek were concerning Wisdom, such as belonged to that age. Antias Valerius adds that they were Pythagoi*ean, his belief being accommodated to the j)opular, though probably false opinion, that Numa was an auditor of Pythagoms. “ At fii*st the books were read by the friends who were present at their discovery. Afterwards, when, by the ]>erusal of many, they had become known, Quintus Petillius, the city pretor, a great reader, obtained them from Lucius Petillius. Their intercourse was familiar, because Quintus Petillius when qufestor had appointed him as scribe for the Decuria. Hav- ing read the headings of the subjects, and perceived that the most of them were subversive of religion, he said to Lucius Petillius, that he purposed throwing the books into the fire, but that before doing so he would give him an opportunity, if he thought that he could, by law or assistance [of others], reclaim the books, to make the experiment ; and that he might do this without loss of favor [from himself]. “ The scribe went to the Tribunes of the People. By them it was re- ferred to the Senate. The pretor pronounced himself ready to make oath that those books ought not to be read and preserved. The Senate decreed ‘ it should be deemed sufficient that the pretor offered his oath, the books should be burned immediately in the Comitium [place of public assembly]; a price for the books should be paid to their owner, to be determined by Quintus Petillius, the pretor, and the majority of the Popular Tribunes.’ The scribe declined this. The books were burned in the Comitium in presence of the people, the fire being kindled by the [official] sacrificers.” — Livy, 40 , 29. According to Pliny, 13 , 27 (or 13), the name of the scribe was Cneius Terentius. Accounts moreover vary as to the number of the books. Compare Plutarch, Numa^ 22. z 402 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. the alleged Cumrean composition perished in the flames. Any extracts from it now extant convey the idea that it was in prose. Subsequent documents called Sibylline were in verse, which may have misled Livy (29, 11) into calling an apparently prose extract from it a song. Further, the reader should note concerning this patrician fabrication, that, unlike Jewish ones of subsequent date, it did not concern itself with moral- ity nor with a future existence. Its only allusions are to affairs of this life ; and even as regards these it confined itself to the wants of Rome and its vicinity. § II. Verses from Eryihrce^ B. C, 76. The alleged Cumsean composition had before its destruc- tion become an object of reverence to many Romans, both patrician and plebeian. When the Capitol was rebuilt, longings were probably expressed that “ The Books ’’ also could be re- stored. Any such expression of longing would best explain what thereupon occurred. On the west coast of Asia Minor, opposite the island of Chios, was a city of Ionia called Erythras, situated on a penin- sula. Some Jew at this place, or who operated from this place, fabricated in Homeric verse, and largely at least in Homeric phraseology, a document teaching Jewish views, and containing what professed to be predictions of well-known his- torical events. The Roman Senate was induced to send three of its members to Asia Minor, in the year b. c. 76, for the pur- pose of bringing this production, which was carefully laid away in the Capitol. The document professed to have been Avrit- ten by “ Sibylla,’’ meaning, apparently, the alleged authoress Fenestella, a Roman historian who is said to have died A. n. 21, narrates that “on the restitution of the Capitol, C. Curio, the consul, ]>roposed to the Senate that envoys should be sent to EiiYTHRiE, who should bring to Rome the verses of Sibylla which diligent search had collected ; and accordingly that P. Gabinius, M. Octavius, and C. Valerius were sent, that they might bring to Rome about a thousand verses [that is lines] copied by individuals.” — Fenestella, quoted in Lactantius, Div. Inst. 1, (). The concluding words of this extract imply, perhaps, that the envoys did not see anything which professed to be original, but merely copies. Ac(;ording to another extract from the same writer, “the Consuls Curio and Octavius took care that these [verses] should be placed in the Capitol, which, under the care of Q. Catulus, had been restored.” — Fenestella, quoted in Lactantius, Delra^ 22. Curio and Octavius were consuls b. c. 76, in which year, therefore, this took place. Strabo, Geog. p. 567. 1 use the Latin term, because I suppose it to have been at this date a pro2)cr name, of which cither A Sibyl or 'I'HE Sil)yl would be a mistrans- § 11 .] VERSES FROM ERYTHR^. 403 of that production which had lately perished. A spurious passage still extant, in the name of Aristotle,^' may have been forged by the Jew, or by some accomplice, as a means of gaiu- iiig credence for this assumption. It affirms that Sibylla came from Erythrse to Cuma). If the Sibylline fragment ap- pended below formed any part of the Erythrman document, it must have had the same object. The assumed Sibylla represented herself as the daughter-in-law of Noah, so that the advocates of antiquity could scarcely in this respect have found another to overmatch her claims. This, and her sub- sequent residence in Italy, implied an unusually long life ; an attribute which we find, in njore than one writer, connected with the mention of lier.^^ Her prediction of Troy’s destruc- tion was, among heathens, a better known date than the Noachic deluge. The author of this Erythrman document invented the idea that Aeneas, instead of remaining at Troy, — as implied in Horner’s Hiad,^ — had emigi’ated to Italy, an lation. It became gradually, however, a common name, and, for the sake of convenience, 1 shall sometimes use the translated terms, which repre- sentats subsequent meaning. These remarks imply that I do not believe in the genuineness of a passage concerning “Sibyls and Ikicides” current under the name of Aristotle in the Pnom.uMs, seet. 30, (piwst. 1. The forgery reads as follows: “ At Chiuue, in Italy, is shown a sub- terranean cave of res[)onse-giving Sibylla, who, they say, remained a virgin during her very long life. She was from Erythra?, but wfis ealh'd by the Italians “Cunuean,” and by some I^lelanebr;ena.” — Pseudo- Aristotle, De mirabilibus Aiisculkitioiiibus^ (piotedby Opsopoeus, 6^/-ar. iSibijl. p. r>8. “ Since the time when the tower fell and the speecli of men Was divided into many human dialects, I — having audrksskd first the kingdom of Egypt, I'hen tlie Persians, Medes, Etldo})ians, and Assyrian Babylon, Then tlie great self-conceit of Macedonia — am sent To the little kingdom of the Italians [now] destitute of an oracle.” Sibyl, Orac. 8, 4-9. Virgil twice calls her the “long-lived priestess.” — yEacid, 6, 3*21, H2S. In Plutarch’s works the tract on the Pythian Oracle mentions “one thousand years” as the lifetime of Sibylla. A’^ol. 7 , p. 561, Reiske’s edit. Heathen literature did not ju.stify tliis conception. It must have come from the Jewish verses. Smith’s Dictionary of Biography says, under the article ^ncas, concerning Homer’s narrative: “Far from alliuling to iEneas having emigrated after the capture of Tioy, and having founded a new kingdom in a foreign land, the poet distinctly intimates that he conceives Aliens and his descendants as reigning at Troy after the extinction of the lioiise of Priam.” The migration of ^Eiieas to Italy, which will be found here- after luidev Part I), originated doubtless with tlie author of the Ery- tlirreau viu’ses, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, writing .shortly before the Christian 404 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. idea which Virgil made the basis of his ^neid.^^ ® Perhaps one object of this invention was that he might represent the al- leged founder of the Italian state, ^neas, as a genuine or practical monotheist, a subject to which we will subsequently recur. Of this ‘‘ Erythraean Sibyl ” considerable portions can be identified among extant Sibylline verses with various degrees of probability or with certainty. Its teachings in some pas- sages seem difficult to reconcile with a deliberate attempt at fraud on the part of its author. Perhaps he was led, or urged, on in this direction further than he at first intended. The Senate, in receiving it, showed a gross lack of critical capacity. An outline of the production may render it easier for the reader to appreciate a discussion of its constituent parts. I shall, therefore, under seven heads, give what I deem an approximate outline of the whole work before dis- cussing it in detail. To facilitate reference I distinguish the parts by letters of the alphabet, and, as an aid to the memory, subjoin to each head the kind of evidence on which rests the argument for its having formed part of the Erytbrman lines. A. An admonition to recognize one God ; attested by Chris- tian writers, and corroborated, perhaps, by Virgil. Also, a commendation of the Jews from which Lactantius has quoted. B. A narrative of the creation and of man’s history until [NoalJs exit from the ark; connected by strong circumstantial evidence with part G. C. A narrative of man’s history after the flood until the rise of idolatry and the beginning of war ; attested by one or more Christian writers, with corroborative evidence from Vir- gil, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and perhaps from Josephus. D. A series of predictions concerning Jewish and Gentile history from the rise of idolatry and the beginning of war until the establishment of God’s kingdom ; resting on hea- era, says that ‘‘ all Romans affirm the advent of iEneas and the Trojans into Ital}^, of whicli also their doings in their feasts and sacrifices ai-e in- dications, also the Sibylline books and Pythian oracles, and many other things.” — Antiq. 1 , 49 . From this statement two inferences seem prob- able ; namely, that other nations did not affirm the migration of iEneas to Italy, and that the only written evidence known to Dionysius was the Sibylline books, for Pythian oracles could not well be classed under that head. On YirgiPs use of this document see the two preceding notes and pp. 418, 419 ; cp. pp. 160, 409, 414, 421, 422, 427, 428, 430, 431, 439. VERSES FROM ERYTIIR^. PART A. 405 § II.] then and Christian testimony. The predictions are disjointed, and some of the original ones are probably lost or altered; E. God^s kingdom, — an era of peace and happiness ; at- tested by Christian, and strongly corroborated by heathen writers. F. The judgment. No unquestionable external evidence. G. Concluding words of Sibylla ; — attested by Lactautius, and corroborated, if not directly attested, by Varro. W.e will now attend to these portions in detail. Part A. This division of the Erythraean Sibyl commenced probably with the first thirty or thirty-nine lines of Book 4 . The Cohort atio ad Graecos quotes seven of these, 24 to 30, as from the Erythraean Sibyl, and this direct testimony of an un- known writer is supported by some, and harmonized with by other considerations wdiich 1 place in the note.^^ In another ‘^2 Tlie title used by the Cohortatio (c. 16) is, “That ancient and exceedingly old Sibyl”; elsewhere (c. 38) it designates her as “That MUST ancient and exceedingly old Sibyl, whose books are preserved in the whole world”; and elsewhere (c. 37), as “That ancient Sibyl” who was said to have “come from Babylon . . . and ]>assing into C.'ampania . . . to have uttered oracles at Cumje.” This language could only be aj)pli- cable to the supposed Erythraean Sibyl who professed to have come from Babylon, and was believed to have settled at Cunae, and was moreover the only one whose writings were distinxtively known, so that they could be appealed to by name. 23 If the beginning of Book 4 be Erythraean, it could only have fitted at the commencennmt of the production. The sole question is whether it be such. The direct testimony of the Cohortatio to a jiart of it is strengthened by the following facts and considerations. 1. The Cohor- tatio, in immediate connection with the seven lines mentioned abov'e, cites (c. 16) two other passages as from the same Sibyl {?yngm. 1 , 7-9 of the Proem, and Book 3 , 7*21 -7-2;?), both of which are attested by Lac- tantius ( 1 , 6, and 7, ]9) as Erythnean. 2. The Sibyl in these lines pro- fesses an impulse to tell men things present and future. This agrees with the plan of the Erythupan lines (see Part G), but with nothing else extant in these Oracles. Tlie other extant Jewish or Christian produc- tions, in their treatment of history, never deal with the present. This last remark applies to the connection in Book 4,Jn which the thirty lines now stand and to which, therefore, they could not well have originally belonged. The Fourth Book, of which they are now the commencement, contains no history of things coeval with the Sibyl. 3. The Erythraean lines endeavored to imitate Homer’s Iliad. These thirty lines seem to do the same. They 0 }>en with a call for attention, of which the first word is that used by AgameTiinon in addressing the assembled council of Greeks {Iliad, 2, 5(j). A slightly different form of the same word is 406 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [NOTE A. note I give the reasons for mistrusting lines 31-39 as not Erythraean, and for rejecting what follows them.^^ After the above, either immediately or with other matter intervening, — we know not which, — seem to have come three fragments, preserved by Theophilus. Two of these, number- ing thirty-five and forty-nine lines respectively, are attested by other writers, and are now published as a Proem or In- troduction to the Sibylline Books, being numbered consecu- tively by Friedlieb as Fragment 1 and Fragment 2 . The third, consisting of three lines, belongs probably before Fragment 2.“® used by Jupiter in addressing the gods {Iliad, 8, 5), by Hector in ad- dressing the assembled Trojans and Greeks {Iliad, 3 , 8(>; 7 , r>7), and occurs repeatedly in the Iliad ( 3 , 97, 804, 450 ; 7 , 348, 308 ; 8 , 497 ; 17 , ‘220 ; 19 , lOl), as does still another form of the same word ( 1 , 37; 5 , 115; 10 , 278 ; 16 , 514; 23 , 770). Again, a negative followed by an allirinative — NOT, followed by but — is a frecpient occurrence in the Iliad ( 1 , 24, 25, 93, 94, 115, 110, 124, 125, 131-135, 152-158, 103-105, and elsewhere), and appears also (lines 4-6) in the lines under consideration. Moreover the supposition of an attempt to imitate the Iliad affords the most satis- factory explanation of the word “peojJe” being ap[)lied to Gentiles. The Jews habitually limited its use to tliemselves and a})])lied to the Gentiles the term nations.” 4. Ervtlme seems to have been the only place in Asia whence the Senate obtained Sibylline verses (see under “Additional Remarks,” in § 5, what is said on the nomenclature of these Oracles), and the first of tlie lines under consideration is moie appiojwi- ate to an Asiatic than to any other origin. Jews of Greece or Rome would have been unlikely to niention Asia first in a[>pealing for atten- tion. An African Jew would not have omitted all allusion to Africa. The following considerations, moreover, harmonize with, if they do not corroborate, the Erythi jean origin of what we are examining. 6. The Erythraian was the most elaborate and noted of the Sibylline productions, and the most likely, thei-efore, to have a well-considered opening. Rut the lines before us are the only instance of such an opening among pieces now extant, Lactantius {Die. InsL 7 , 23) quotes lines 40-43, 45, 46, of Book 4 , as from A Sibyl, which with him is equivalent to saying that they are not Eiythr?ean. Of the intervening lines, 31-34 differ from the geneiul tone of Part A, in being moral rather than theological, and they seem to be connected with lines 35-39, which resemble more the utter- ance of a man irritated by false charges from his neighbors, than the deliberate production of a person wilting for the Roman Senate some hundred miles distant. Lactantius makes seven quotations from the first and four from the second fragment, attributing each citation to the Erythraean Sib}J, and saying, as he quotes lines 5 and 6 of the first fragment, that they aie from the beginning of lier song. The Cohortatio ad'Graecos, erroneously attributed to Justin Martyr, also quotes, as we have seen. Fragment 1 , lines 7-9, as from “that ancient and exceedingly old Sibyl.” Virgil imitates a ]>assage in the second fragment. The other Sibylline (piotations of Theophilus are from the Erythraean § 11 -] VERSES FROM ERYTIIR.E. PART A. 407 None of these are now extant in Sibylline rnannscripts. As some readers may desire to peruse these pieces, I subjoin them, in the order above specified : — “ Hearken, People of vainglorious Asia and also of Europe, To all the verities which I am about to prophesy AVith my powerful many-toned voice, I, an oracle, — not of false Phoebus whom silly men Call God, and make believe to be a prophet, but — 5 Of the Great God, whom human hands have not formed In likeness of speechless idols, hewn in stone. For neither is his dwelling a statue seated in a temple. Dumb and senseless, a grievous shame to mortals, But a habitation not visible from earth, nor measurable lo By mortal eyes, nor formed by mortal hand. II E (who sees all men at once, but is seen by none, AVhose are the obscure night and sunny day. The stars and moon and sea teeming with fish. The land and rivers and voice of ever-flowing fountains, 15 The life-nourishing creations, showers which bring forth Farm fruit and trees, and vine and olive). He has spurred my inmost mind to tell Accurately to mortals the present and the future [From the first until the eleventh f/encration.y^ 20 For He who brings them to pass, told me all things. Do you, 0 Peo])le, listen all Sibylla’s [words], AVho pours forth with hallowed voice a truthful utterance. Blessed among men shall they on earth be AVho shall delight in the Great God and offer him thanks 25 Before eating and drinking ; who shall trust in works of practical monotheism, AVho reject all temples which they see, And altars, — senseless images of dumb stone, polluted AVith soul-containing blood and sacrifices of quadrupeds, — AVlio look to the glory of the One God.” 30 verses. This ami the apparent coherence of these three lines with Frag- ment 2 have induced me to prefix them thereto. Since doing so, I notice that the same position for them is suggested hy Opsopoeus on page 4 of his notes to the Oracles and is adopted by Alexandre. I suspect the line in brackets to be an interpolation of later date than the disturbances in B. c. 18-12, under Augustus. See, concerning the Tenth Age, pp. 118, 119. Sibyl. Orac. 4, l-30. For the reader’s convenience I append a translation of the already mentioned lines, 31 - 39, that he may exercise his own judgment as to their Erythrrean origin. Clement of Alex- andria quotes lines 33, 34 in his Pcedrujogite, 2, nn, as he had in a prior work, Protrept. 62, quoted lines 27-30, that is, without informing us whether they are Erythnvan. Neither committing atrocious murder; nor thievishly Getting enormous gain, — both fearful things. 408 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. “ Mortals, men of flesh, who are as nothing, Why 80 prompt at self-exaltation, not looking to the end of life. Do you not tremble, nor fear God, your Overseer, The Highest Observer, — Allseeing Witness of all things. The all-nourishing Creator who has endowed all with his spirit 6 Which we admire, and made it the guide of mortals 1 There is one God, who is Alone, Immense, Unborn, Euler of all. Invisible ; seeing all things, But unseen himself by fleshly mortals. For what flesh can with its eyes see the Immortal God, lo The Heavenly and True, who inhabits the skies i Not even before the beams of the sun Can human beings stand, of mortal birth. Men who are but blood ^ and flesh with bones. Eecognize Him, who alone is Guide of the world, 15 Who alone exists to Eternity and from Eternity, Self-born, Unborn, ruling all things' through Eternity, Dwelling in all, a means of judgment by the light which he imparts. You have the reward which your folly deserves, Since neglecting the true, eternal God, so [To honor and sacrifice holy hecatombs to him] You perform your sacrifices to demons in Hades, You walk insanely and blindly. Forsaking the path Straight and easy, you stray in that through thorns And stakes. Why, mortals, do you wander ? Stop, heedless ones, 25 [Roaming in darkness and rayless night gloom,] And leave the darkness of night. Accept the light. Who does this is all-wise, and cannot err. Come, do not fore ver^ seek darkness and the Underworld. See how especially cheering are the beams of the sun. 30 Place wisdom in your hearts, and know There is one God, who sends rain, winds, and earthquakes ; Lightnings, famines, plagues, and bitter sorrow ; Snow-storms and hail. Shall I say it in one word ? He guides Heaven and governs earth. He is The Euler.” 35 Not cherishing base desire for another’s partner, Nor yet unnatural and odious lust. Whose life — its true recognition of God, its morals — The rest of mankind, eager for shamelessness, Will not imitate. But, with mockery and derision, Babes in understanding v/ill falsely charge on them Their own atrociously wicked deeds.” Literally, veins. That is, who are dead and gone long ago. Theophilus, yld Autol. 2, 30 ; compare Friedlieh, Fragment 1, lines 1 - 35. To the above Friedlieh erroneoush^ adds three lines from Lactantius, which that writer attributes to another Sil)yl. VERSES FROM ERYTIIUiE. PART A. 409 § n] If "ods liave children and remain immortal, The gods would become more numerous than men, Nor would there be room for mortals to stand.” • . • • .• (? If, however, everything born must also perish, A husband and wife cannot create a god ; But the sole God is One ; the Most High, who made The Heaven and the sun, the stars and the moon, The fruitful earth and watery sea-surges, s The lofty mountains and perennial fountain currents. He renews the unnumbered tribes of the deep. He nourishes what creeps and moves on earth. And the various birds of clear or tremulous note, — Nightingales beating the air with trembling wings. lo He placed the wild beasts in the mountain-l'orests. To us mortals he sul)jected domestic animals. He made the God-begotten a leader of all And subordinated to Man this incomprehensible variety. For what mortal can know all these things? 15 He only knows, who originally made them, The imperishable, eternal Creator, dwelling in ether. Who gives to the good an abundant reward. And excites for the evil and unjust, anger And war and pestilence, yea, lamentable sufferings. 20 AVhy, causelessly conceited men, do ye deride [Him] ? Shame on you for deifying cats and reptiles. Has not insanity destroyed thought [when you believe] That the gods steal frying-pans and carry off earthen vessels ? That, instead of dwelling amidst ])lenty in the golden heaven, 25 They care for the moth-eaten, and are frightened by spiders 1 Senseless worshippers of snakes, dogs, and cats ! You deify also birds and reptiles. And sculptured stones and hand-made images. And stone-heaps by the wayside. These ye deify, 30 Besides nunierous absurdities, unfit to mention. Theophilus, Ad Autol. 2, 8 . No means remain of determining whether anything is wanting between this and the next (piotation. In the latter tlie reader should compare, with lines 3-5 and 7 - 9 , the fol- lowing pantheistic imitation of them by Virgil, who represents tlie s])irit of Anchises as thus commencing his explanations to Alneas in presence of Sibylla: — To begin then; Heaven and earth and the fields of Water, The moon’s shining orb and the Titan-stars Are nourished by an internal spirit. A mind, infused Tlirough the members, moves the mass and mingles with the mighty body. Thence the race of men and of herds and the life of birds, And whatever monsters the sea bears under its polished surface.” . iEneid, 6, 724 - 729. A similar passage occurs 111 the Georgies^ 4 , 220 - 224 . 18 410 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. Yet your gods are the deceivers of ignorant mortals. A deadly ])oison flows from their mouth. He, of whom is life and enduring light, Who pours out to men joys sweeter than honey, 35 To Him only shouldst thou bow thy head And incline thy path amidst his constant worshippers. Forsaking these you seize the brimful cup Of condemnation, strong, undiluted, and overpowering. For your senseless selves ; all of you in madness. 40 You will not sober and return to a right mind, And know God, the King, the All-seeing One. Therefore the glowing fire shall be your portion. You shall burn unceasingly through eternity, Ashamed of your false and useless idols. 45 But those who honor the true and eternal God Shall inherit life. During eternity they dwell In the fruitful garden of paradise. Eating delicious bread from the starry heaven.”^* Lactantius quotes, as Erythrmau, two lines from the follow- ing commendation of the Jews; an effusion which could only have belonged under Part A or Part D. Its use of the pres- ent tense renders it difficult of location under the latter and gives it an apparent coherence with the former, which leads me to place it here. “ There is a city, Chaldean Ur, Whence comes the race of most upright men. Who are ever right-minded and their works good. 220 They are neither concerned for the sun’s course Nor the moon’s, nor for monstrosities on earth, Nor for satisfaction from Ocean’s depths. Nor for signs of sneezing and the augury from birds ; Nor for soothsaying, nor sorcery, nor incantations ; 225 Nor for deceitful follies of ventriloquists. They do not, Chaldsean fashion, astrologize. Nor watch the stars. (For all such things mislead, — Things daily pursued by senseless men, Who discipline themselves to nothing useful, — 230 And are a source of error to weak-minded mortals, Causing many evils to mankind on earth By misleading from right ways and just deeds.) But they are concerned about uprightness and virtue.^^ Their measures are just both in field and in cify. ^ That is, manna. ^ Theophilus, Ad Autol. 2, 3 ( 5 ; Friedlieb, Proem. 2, lines 1 - 49 . ^ Two lines between this and the next are absent from some manU' scripts and are here omitted. VERSES FROM ERYTHRJ;:. PART B. 411 § II.] They do not steal from each other hy night, Nor drive off herds of oxen and sheep and goats. Nor does neighbor remove his neighbor’s field-marks. 240 Nor does the wealthy man vex the poor one, Nor oppress widows, but much rather assists them. Providing them always with grain, wine, and oil ; Always a blessing to those in want among the people, He gives back part of his harvest to the needy. 245 Thus they fulfil the oracles of the Great God, his law in songf^ For ‘ The Heavenly ’ made the earth common to all.” ^ Part B. What seems to have been the next portion consists of lines 1 - 290 in Book 1, containing an account of the creation and of other circumstances until after the flood, taken from the narrative in Genesis.^® d’hese lines are not quoted by any ancient writers, ])ossibly because their contents were of no use in the controversies of that day ; but a sufficiently attested passage of the Erythra3an Sibyl near its close implies that a narrative such as this had lieen given : and in that passage occurs a singular use of the word vvfxcjyrj, a bride, as desig- nating a daughter-in-law, a meaning which would not be sus- pected from anything in the passage itself, but which finds its explanation in the present narrative.'*^ Further, the state- I suppose this to be the meaning of ivuofxov vuvov, an accommodation probably to heathen views, which among the Greeks expected divine communications to he in verse. This line may be interpolated. 37 Sibyl. Orac. 3, 21S-247. 33 Prom these lines, however, should he omitted 193-196, and per- liaps 184-187, as interpolations. 33 See book 3, lines 818-828, quoted under Part G. ^3 See tlie (j notation of book 3, line 826, contained with other matter in Part G. Without other ex})lanation than is afforded by the connec- tion there, Sibylla would appear as Noah’s wife. In the ])resent fragment, when the time has arrived for Noah to enter the ark, God says to him, — “Go in quickly, with thv sons and thy wife And the brides.” — 1, 205, 206. And again, on leaving the Ark : — “Noah, as if from a chest. Went courageously iqion the earth, and his sons with him ; Also his wife and the brides.” — 1, 275-277. And again, Sibylla says ; — “ 0, the great joy Which Avas afterwards my lot, in escaping frightful destruction 412 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. ment, in the beginning of these lines, as to what the Sibyl purposed, agrees with the concluding statement in the pas- sage mentioned, as to what she had accomplished. Part C. This portion included man’s history after the flood until the rise of idolatry and the beginning of war, — two evils, — the end of which (according to Book 3 , line 806, belonging to Part E) will occur in millennial times. In a methodical production by a Jew we should not expect the ‘Hower of Babel” and the confusion of tongues” to be omitted. Josephus and Theophilus^^ have each preserved as Sibylline a narrative of these events, and in the Sibylline Books, as published, there are three instances in which a copyist or re-fashioner of the Erythraean document seems to have saved labor by opening with this subject, either with or without an allusion to the preceding flood. An immediate result of confusion in language was the di- vision of mankind into kingdoms, — three, apparently, since they were ruled by Saturn, Titan, and Japetus. After much suffering, being buffeted by the waves with my bridegroom, His brotliers, his father and mother, and my fellow-brides.” — 1, 287 - 290 . The Old Testament mentions no grandchildren of Noah in the ark, which is perhaps the reason why his daughters-in-law are styled “brides.” Considering, moreover, the extent to which the Eiytlirffian verses copied Homer, it is noteworthy that in the Iliad^ 3, 130 , Helen is called a “bride.” 41 (( Beginning with the first generation of mortal men I will prophesy all things to the last. What FORMERLY WAS, WHAT NOW IS, and what hereafter Will occur to the world because of human irreligion. First, God commands me to state exactly How the world came into existence.” — Sibyl. Orac. 1, 1-6. Compare 3, 818 - 828 , alluded to above, and quoted in Part G. Antiquities, 1, 4, § 3. Josephus seems, if we ma}^ judge from his using the term “gods,” to have quoted at second-hand through some heathen writer. Ad Autolycum, 2, 31 . Of this citation eight lines agree with an equal number constituting part of a passage in the Sibylline Oracles, 3, 97-107 ; and, of the remaining two, one agrees with line 5 of Book 8, whilst the other would seem not to be extant in all the copies of The- ophilus. So at least I understand note /, on page 371 of Maraii’s J ustin . Sibyl. Orac. 3, 97-109 ; 8, 4 , 5 ; 9, 6 - 16 . VERSES FROM ERYTHRiE. PART C. 413 } II.] Men called them, ‘ Noblest children of earth And heaven ^ ; naming them of ‘ earth and heaven ' l^ecause they were most prominent among mortals. Into ‘ thirds ^ was the earth divided. According to each one^s lot. Each reigned, having his part ; nor did they quarrel.” ^ Subsequently a difficulty between Saturn and Titan was, through the interposition of their mother and sisters, ad- justed by giving supremacy to Saturn, on conditions which his brother imposed, and which his wife’s maternal feelings led her to violate. Thereupon Titan and his sons imprisoned Saturn whose children fought for his release. This was the first human war."^® Lactantius testifies that the Erythraean Sibyl contained such an account ; and adds, apparently from the same source, that after Saturn’s liberation by his son Jupiter, he was prompted by an oracle to plot against his son, who thereupon expelled him. Saturn, after much wandering, pursued by Jupiter’s emissaries, settled in Italy.* **® The testimony of Lactantius, if it needs any support, is strengthened by other writers,^® Sibyl. Orac. 3, 111-115. Tlie whole ])assage is compiistnl in lines 108-155, of which I suppose 108, 109, to be a later addition. See Ch. VI. note 4. Sibyl. Orac. 3, llG-155. Lactantius (piotes from Ennius, a heathen writer, an account similar to the above, and comments upon it as follows: “ How true this account is, we are taught by the Erythriean Sibyl, who makes nearly the .same statement, the dilferences being few and unimportant.” — .Div. Inst. 1, 14. Ibid. **3 Athenagoras, in his Lcgatio, 30 (pp. 307, 308 of Maran’s Justin), (piotes lines 108-113 of tlie passage, attributing them to Sibylla, of whom Plato makes mention. Tertullian {Ad Xationcs, 2, 12) quotes ]nirt of the same passage, attributing it to Sibylla, “who existed earlier than all literature.” This work of Tertullian comes to us much muti- lated. It mentioned ( 2 , 17 ) Saturn’s reign, if not his arrival in Italy. In the parallel passage of his Apology (10), he speaks of Saturn as having, after many wanderings, settled in Italy. According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, “what is now called Italy was s.\cred to this god (Saturn), and was called by the inhabitants ‘Saturnia,’ as can be found stated in the Sibylline Bo(')Ks, and other oracles given by the gods.” — Antiq. 1 , 34. It may be remarked in passing, that Tertullian, in the ])assage cited of his work Ad Natdoncs, styles the Sibyl’s verses “Di- vine Writings,” or Letters. An interesting (Question would be, whether the special worship of Saturn in Italy can be traced in any author of earlier date than the Erythriean lines. The reader will find by returning to note 6 that, in a feast provided for the deities in B. c. 399, Saturn was entirely oveilooked. In determining whether this special attention to 414 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. one of whom, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, is an early one. The object of the Erythraean writer was, probably, to explain the origin of idolatry by attributing it to a human misappre- hension. Tertullian and Lactantius use the Sibylline narra- tive for the same object. Besides the above there is extant what I take to be a frao:- ment — with alterations, perhaps — from this Erythra3an story about Saturn. Virgil, in his mention of the Satur- nian kingdoms, must have had in view the Erythraean pas- sage. Saturn in Italy were a perversion of some Jewish teaching, it is at least noteworthy that the annual otierings to him were on the day of the Jew- ish passover (see Dionysius of Halicarnas. 1, 3S ; Vol. 1, p. 97), and that part of the ceremony miglit have originated (compare pp. 151, 152) from a direction to throw away images. Dionysius recognizes it as something distinct from either Roman or Greek customs. It follows the narrative of the Hood in Book 1 , and is in part as follows ; — Three high-minded kings. Most upright of mankind, shall apportion [men’s] lot, And govern many a year, meting out justice To men fond of labor and of lovely works. The productive earth shall smile again with many Spontaneous fruits, an over-harvest for posterity. But these progenitors, untouched in all their days by age, Sliall be free from disease's and cliill-fevers. They shall die overcome by sleep, and depart To Acheron in the abodes of Hades, and there Shall have honor because they were a race of ‘the Blessed.’ Happy men to whom Sabaoth gave good understanding.” Sibyl. Orac. 1,293-304. After these, according to the same passage, came the Titans. The Avhole account (lines 291 - 323) is followed by a portion of Christian origin. I su]>pose that the author of this latter prefixed from the Erythraean verse's the account of the creation and the flood (lines 1 - 290) as a means of pro- curing greater credence for his work, and the intermediate lines are prob- ably an attempted condensation of some Erythraean ideas which he did not care to copy at length. See, under Part E, the quotation from his fourth Eclogue. There is in Hesiod’s “Works and Days” an account of consecutive ages named after the metals. The “golden” age is represented as the earliest, and as coincident with Saturn’s reign in Heaa^en. Smith’s Diet of Bic(j. in its article on Hesiod (p. 441), treats this account, beginning with line 109 of Book 1, as being the second of three interpolations. I have no means of determining whether it be of earlier or later date than the Erythraean document. But that Virgil had in mind the latter composi- tion is obvious from the following considerations. He connects his ref- erence wdth a mention of the Sibyl, or of Cumaean song. He speaks of Saturnian kingdoms in the plural, wdiich agrees with the Sibylline idea of three kingdoms, but wdth nothing in the “ Works and Days.” He § 11 .] VERSES FROM ERYTIIR^. PART D. 415 Part D. To this portion I assign whatever in the production related to man’s history after the rise of idolatry and before the estab- lishment of God’s kingdom. The style of the writer, which in Parts B and C was naiTative, becomes in the present por- tion predictive. In lines 248-294 of Book 3 is foretold the exit of the Jews from Egypt ; also their captivity at a later date and the de- struction of their temple because of their idolatry ; and the subsequent restoration of that building. The fragment has a somewhat imperfect appearance. The original passage, which it partially represents, would fit naturally into the Erythreeaii composition, and probably belonged to it. As regards heathen nations, tliere is a passage concerning Troy to which we shall shortly pay attention ; but with this exception no other part of the Erythraean verses seems to have suffered more at the hands of time. Lack of interest in this poi’tion might account for its not having been copied by the Christians ; but a special reason for neglecting it probably existed, which I will endeavor to unfold. Cicero, who seems to have adopted the then common view, which identified di- vine inspiration with divinely caused insanity, argues against the inspiration of the Erythraean composition on two grounds ; namely, that it was methodical and that it contained acros- tics.®^ Further, an extant passage in the Oracles renders it quotes a condition of tilings mentioned in the Sibylline verses, hut not in those attributed to Hesiod. A “golden age” is mentioned, Sibyl. Orac. 1 , 28 .% 284 . 62 Cicero, in the first book of his work on Divination^ puts into the mouth of his brother the current arguments in behalf of pojmlar belief, and in the second book gives, in his own person, answers thereto. In Book 1 (18), ;u, his brother is represented as attributing foreknowledge to the ErythrcTan Sibyl. In Book 2 (54), 110, 111, Cicero responds: “Let us examine Sibylla’s verses, which she is said to have poured out during a frenzy. . . . That that song is not the production of a fren- zied person, both the poem itself indicates (for it is more a work of art and diligence than of excitement and impulse) and also that [peculiarity] which is called an acrostic, in which something is connected in regular oi’der by the first letter of the verses in certain compositions of Ennius, which Ennius made]. That certainly is the work of an atten- tive rather than of a frenzied mind. But in the Sibylline verses, from the first verse of any paragraph, a whole song is [consecutively] woven together by means of the first letters of that paragraph. This is the work of an author, not of a frenzied person; the work of a laborious mind, not of a crazy one.” 41-6 SIBYLLINE BOOKS, [note a. probable that these acrostics were in that portion which pre- dicted the fate of nations.^® Still further, acrostics after the time of Cicero and Varro came to be regarded as evincing the spurious character (whatever that might mean) of any Sibyl- line composition in which they were found, A natural conse- quence was, that whoever wished to use Sibylline verses as an authority, would be anxious that they should neither contain, nor be connected with, acrostics. Not one of the acrostics extant in the days of Cicero and Yarro has come down to us. In two passages of the extant Oracles ( 3 , 159-161, and 8 , 6-8) only three lines are allowed to the aggregate of consec- utive nations. In two other passages ( 4 , 49-151, and 9 (or 11 ), 9 -.31 4) more space is devoted to the subject. But a crit- ical examination wdll evince that the major part of these pas- sages cannot have been Erythra3an, and will create distrust of such origin for anything in them unless in so far as it may be substantiated by other evidence. There is, however, a duplicate subject contained in Book 9 (or 11 ), which, as regards one or both of its parts, reappears in more than one passage of the extant oracles, and which excited much attention in the heathen world.^^ One part of The commencement of Book 11 (numbered 9 by Friedlieb), after a brief allusion to the flood, the tower of Babel, and the dissensions after its fall, adds : — From the date of these events the whole earth was divided Among different nations and all kinds of dialects, Wliose numbers I will tell and will name them in acrostics Of the initial letter, and will make their name obvious.” Sibyl. Orac.9(ll), 15-18. If the account of nations, following upon this statement, was originally written in acrostics, it must have been rewritten so as to eliminate them. Theophilus, in his quotation (Ad Autol. 2, 31) concerning the tower of Babel, the confusion of tongues, and the distribution into nations, ends — if we reject what has no manuscript authority — with that line of the foregoing which precedes a mention of acrostics, adding, “and so FORTH.” I am not without suspicion that the last three words may have been intended to throw his heathen readers off their guard. A knowl- edge that the quoted work contained acrostics would liave destroyed its authority. Sibyl. Orac. 3, 414 - 432 ; 7, 51-54; 9 (or 11), 122-171. Compare 3, 200 ; 5, 8, 9 ; 12, 8, 9. ^ Varro in his enumeration of the Sibyls connects with his mention of the Erythraean this passage alone concerning Troy and Homer; and Ids statement renders evident that Apollodorus had given prominence to the same before him. Such heathens as wished to claim for a Sibyl of their own faith, or such Greeks as wished to claim for one of their own VERSES FROM ERYTIFR^,. PART D. 417 § "•] this subject is Troy’s destruction. The other is an allegation that Homer would tell falsehoods. To avoid presenting the subject in too disjointed a manner, I will state my own sup- position as to the purport of the Erythrman passiige, and will then lay before the reader the evidence, direct or indirect, for the ditferent points contained in it. I suppose that the Erythrajan writer represented in the guise of a prediction that Troy would be destroyed for its idolatry ; that H^hieas, a genuine monotheist, would be pre- served ; that he would, in escaping, act as became a true monotheist, by caring for an aged parent, whom he woidd bear on his shoulders, and for his child, whom he would lead by the hand ; that after seven years’ wandering he would found a new dynasty in Italy ; that Homer would copy Sibylla’s verse and phraseology ; and that he would tell falsehoods by representing that the (heathen) deities aided the combatants around Troy. The prediction that Troy would be destroyed and that Homer would tell lies is ascribed to the Erythrman Sibyl by Apollodorus, a citizen of Erytlme, who was cotemporary with the forgery. The nioiiotlieism and seven years’ wan- country, the renown of being most distinguished, were sure to specify tliat their favorite was the one who had predicted touching Troy, or liad lived prior to the Trojan war. See Pausanias in Phocicis and Solimis Polyhistor, cli. 8, quoted by Opsopoeus, pp. 73, 127 ; also Suidas touching the Delphic Sibyl (in Vol. 3 of his Lexicon, on ]>. 309), wliich was of course copied from some heathen authority; also Diodorus Siculus, Book 4, near the middle of ch. 4. Compare, also, in note 63, what is said by Dio Chrysostom. ^ A passage from Varro concerning the Sibyls has been preserved by Lactantius, in which the foinier writer says of the Eiythnean : “ Whom Apollodorus of Erythne affirms to have been of liis own city and to have prophesied to(?) the Creeks when on their way to Ilium, that Troy would perish and that Homer would write falsehoods.” — Lact. J)iv. Inst. 1, c. 1 suspect that Varro, whose voluminous reading im[)lies that he read hastily, may have mistranslated from Apollodorus. The latter may liave written, “She foretold that Troy would be captureil by Creeks in an expedition against Ilium.” My reason for suspecting thus much of an inaccuracy in Varro is that traces exist in the oracles and outside of them of an assumed prediction concerning Helen, as the cause of the war, who should arise out of Sparta. This would imply that the prediction assumed to have been uttered before the war broke out. See Pausanias (a writer of the second century) in Phocicis, on p. 72 of Opsopoeus. Compare also Sibyl. Crac. 3, 414; 9, 125. Theie is yet one other suggestion on whicdi the reader may wish to exercise his own judgment, and which, therefore, 1 will lay before him. 18 AA 418 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. dering of ^neas are an inference from the following facts. Virgil habitually styles ^Eneas the pious, a designation not apparently based on anything in the JEneid. This is the usual, if not universal, translation, or mistranslation, of the words 6^coo*€/??j9 and which, in Jewish and Christinii Greek, always mean a monotheist and practical monotheist.^’^ As Virgil copied largely from the Erythreean verses, it is more likely that the term originated with their author, in whose plan it would have had an object, than with Virgil, in whose work it is without one. Compare on this head extracts in foot-note 60 . A similar remark applies to the seven years’ wandering of iEneas. Virgil’s narrative does not call for, and can scarcely be reconciled with, such a lapse of time.®® The number seven, moreover, was not likely to be adopted without special reasou^ by a heathen. But if it originated with a Jew, then it was precisely the one most likely to be adopted for anything in- definite. That the destruction of Troy was attributed to its idolatry rests on the probability that an extant passage to that effect in According to Suidas, under the word Ilion, Vol. 2 , pp. 114, 115, the EiythuT-an Sibyl was in Greece when the Argonauts sailed. These wor- thies were reputed in other accounts to have performed on their outward voyage at Troy, near Erythrae, one of their notable exploits (Valer. Flac- cus, 2 , 451 - 549 ), and to have come back over the Erythraean sea. This sea was, to be sure, nowhere near Erythrae, yet the two statements raise the following question : Did the Erythraean forger represent his predic- tion concerning Troy as having been made to the Argonauts on their expedition ? This v;ould, according to the then popular views, have placed the prediction at a date about one or two generations before the destruc- tion of Troy, and somewhat later than the time of Saturn. This date would not conllict with tlie style of the Erythraean writer, which is nar- rative in Saturn’s time, and predictive afterwards. See In this A]>pendix, Note B, § i. Nos. 2 and 5. In the ^Eneid, 1, 755, 75(>, Dido asks iEneas for an account of his wanderings, remarking, that “already the seventh summer bears you a wanderer in all lands and seas.” He reached Italy, according to Virgil, in tlie next spring, which, as he launched in the beginning of summer {EEneidy 3 , 8), would make out seven years. The reader will find in the Paris edition of Latin writers by Lemaire, in Excursus 2, appended to the third book of the JEncid, an attempt to s}>read chronologically the events through seven years. On page 453 the writer remarks that events specified by him must have occupied two years, or else the number seven cannot be made out. On the preceding page he treats the launch and departure of Hhieas, from “the fields where Troy had stood” {^Eneid, 3 , 10, ]]), as occurring in the second year of his wandering. § U.] VERSES FROM ERYTHR.E. PART D. 419 the oracles is copied or imitated from the Erythraean verses. Also on the coherence of such an idea with the general object of those verses. Also, if the view be accepted that ^neas was represented as a practical-monotheist, on the probability of an antithesis having been made between preservation for a monotheist and destruction for idolaters. The particulars attending the escape of ^Eneas appear both in the Sibylline Oracles ^ and in Virgil. They represent that consideration for parents and thoughtfulness for children which are inculcated as religious duties in the Old Testament, but which it w’ould puzzle any one to find taught as part of the religion in which Virgil had been educated. It is out of the question that in this instance a Jew copied and Virgil origi- nated. The charge that Homer would copy from Sibylla is one which it would seem that the Erythraean forger must neces- sarily have made in order to avoid having his work charged with plagiarism from that writer. This alone would enable us safely to infer that the extant passage must in this respect resemble something in the Erythraean production. This in- ference, if affected at all, is strengthened by the fact, that heathen writers, of later date than the Erythraean verses, claim this peculiarity for a suppo8ed heathen Sibyl.®^ 69 « Troy shall enter, not the wedding, but the tomb, in whoso depth Her brides sliall weep because they did not recognize God.” Sibyl. Orac. 7 , 52,53. 6® “ There shall be a chief from the race and blood of Assaracus, A renowned son of heroes, a brave and powerful man. He shall leave this fire-ravaged [city,] A fugitive and exile through war's fearful doings. Rearing on his shoulders his aged parent, Holding his sou by the hand, a deed of true monotheism. His name shall be tri-syllabic. The [alphabet's] first letter Will plainly point out this noblest man. And then he will build the powerful citv of the Latins.” Sibyl. Orac. 9 aib 144-155. Compare with lines 146-149 of the foregoing, Virgil’s jE)icid, 2, 707, 708, 72.% 724. Clement of Alexandria commends {Pccdag. 3, 70) the wife of iEneas for keeping herself veiled even when escaping from the burning city. Such commendation must have originated with a Jew rather than a heathen, but, whether with the author of the Erythraean verses, wo cannot determine. 61 “ And thereafter there shall be a deceitful old author. He shall write about Troy, but not truthfully, 420 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. That Homer’s falsehoods should have consisted in his attrib- uting to heathen deities an agency in human events accords, at least, so well with the design of the Erythraean writer that the existing passage to that efiect could with greater probabil- ity be attributed to him than be regarded as a different appli- cation by a later hand, of Homer’s mendacity.^^ Additional .probability is given to this view by the fact, that Dio Chry- sostom, who sympathized with monotheists, and who quoted Sibylla in support of morality, found himself charged with unbelief, because he maintained that Homer told falsehoods. His defence of himself strengthens yet further this supposi- tion.^ Yet manifestly in my phraseology and shall use my metre; For he will first unroll my books" with his hands.” Sibyl. Orac. 3 , 419 - 425. The unmeaning word ovofirfur]^ in the last line of the above, needs cor- rection. (The context hardly admits any ditferent sense from that indi- cated in the parallel line 169 of Book 11 or 9 .) In this latter version of the passage Homer is additionally charged with concealing Sibylla’s books. It reads as follows : — “ And thereafter there shall be a wise old bard, Whom all will style the wisest among mortals; By whose eminent genius the whole world will be instructed; For he shall write paragraphs with inventive power, And he shall write, at times, what is unspeakably beautiful. Clearly by using my expressions, measure, and phraseology. For he" will first unroll my books and afterwards Conceal them and no longer show them to mankind.” Sibyl. Orac. 9 (11), 163-170. From heathen writers we have the following: “She [the daughter of Teiresias, devoted by her captors to the oracle at Delphi] wrote in all kinds of Oracles [things] distinguished by their style of composition, from whom Homer, they say, by appropriating much [of her] phraseology, adorned his own poetry.” — Diodorus Siculus, 4 , 4. In a different author we are told, “ Bocchus thinks that the Delphic Sibyl prophesied earlier than the Trojan wars, very many of whose verses he shows that Homer inserted in his work.” — Solinus Polyhistor, 8, quoted in Opsopoeus, p. 127. The Sibylline Oracles, 3 , 426-430, say of Homer: — “ He will specially deck the heroes of war. Hector, son of Priam, and Achilles, son of Peleus, And the others who mingled in warlike works; And will make the gods bring them assistance, — Writing all manner of lies for empty-headed mortals.” “Some of the Sophists treat my contradiction of Homer as unbelief [in the heathen deities] . . . but, concerning the deities, all, even his flatterers, confess, in brief, that Homer says nothing true; ... he rep- resents the gods as grieving and groaning and wounded and almost dying; ... he does not hesitate to report the speeches of the gods in the dis- § II.] VERSES FROM ERYTIIRrE. PART E. 421 I have not attempted in the foregoing to arrange in its order the history of nations and the account of Troy. I suspect, however, that in addition to the previously mentioned account of the nations, there was one event — briefly alluded to in the extant oracles®^ — which can hardly have been omitted by the Erythraean writer. This was the invasion of Greece by the Gauls, a circumstance the more likely to be noticed as the Gauls had subsequently passed into Asia Minor and made themselves felt in that community. Part E. This portion of the Erythreean document treated of God’s kingdom ; an era of holiness and happiness which the Deity woidd prepare for his true worshippers. Whether a promi- nent position therein was, or was not, assigned to a Messiah, is a question which will come up in connection with a passage hereafter to be examined. Many of the Jews and of the Christians held that this era would last a thousand years, and it was, therefore, called the MILLENNIUM. Whether such a view appeared in the Erythrieaii lines is a matter of uncertain inference from considerations which I place in the note.®^ I also place there a view of Ter- tullian on a cognate subject, and one from Virgil, which the reader may wish to compare in this connection.®® putes which he attributes to them with each otlier ; and not only the public ones in the presence of all the gods, hut also the private ones of some among them, as, for example, when Jupiter became incensed against Juno because of the fraud upon and defeat of the Trojans.” — Dio Chrysostom, Oral. 11, Vol. 1, pp. 311 -313. Sibyl. Orac. 3, 500 , 510 . 65 Yiipril certainly copies most of his Jewish ideas from the Erythraean writer. This creates a presumption, though not a certainty, that any Jewish views in his works w’ere from the same source. One view held by Jewish and Christian believers in a millennium, was that at the close of its thousand years the general re.surrection should take ])lacc. The shade of Anchises, according to the ^neid^ 6 , 748 - 751 , teaches (cp. p. 572) that after a thousand years in the Elysian Fields its inmates, a mighty host, are restored to life. Further, the seven ages mentioned under Part F (Sibyl. Orac. 2, 321 ) raises the question, whether the author by an age meant one thousand years. This was a common interpretation of the seven days or ages. Tertulliaii, whose views were by no means ahvays consistent, speaks of the heavenly kingdom as lasting a thousand years, “within which era the resurrection of the saints will be ended, who will rise earlier or later, according to their [individual] deserts.” — Adv, Marcioiiy 3, 24 ; 422 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. The happy era attracted attention from Christian and heathen writers. Lactaiitius makes six quotations from it, specifying that they are Erythraean, though they do not all agree with the present Sibylline text. The Cohortatio ad Graecos quotes three lines of it as from that “ancient and exceedingly old Sibyl.” A quotation by Clement of Alexan- dria is perhaps from it. Virgil, in his fourth Eclogue, has sufficiently identified it as the source whence he borrows ; and Horace has translated portions of it, and burlesqued others. Yet with all these aids it is difficult to separate what is Eryth- raean from what is not. Passages which Lactantius quotes from other Sibyls are intermixed with the earlier production, owing, I suspect, to the well-intentioned efforts of the Byzan- tine harmonist.®" I will endeavor to select some passages of which there can be least doubt, though much which I omit may have belonged to it. “ There shall again be a sacred race of practical-monotheists, Attentive to the counsels and mind of the Most High, [ JVho shall pay honors round the temple of the Great God With libation and with burnt-offeriny and holy hecatombs. With sacrifices of well-fed bulls and unmarred rams. Offering fat flocks of firstling sheep and lambs As whole burnt-offerings in holiness on the great altar,'] Eighteously accepting the law of the Most High, 680 The blessed shall inhabit cities and rich fields, Being exalted as prophets by the Immortal, And bearers of great joy to all mortals.®^ • • • • • And then [men] shall bend to the Great God, the King Immortal, their bare knee on the fruitful earth 0pp. p. 499 C. Tertullian, if we may judge from his teachings else- where, did not intend that any one should escape without his due share of PUNISHMENT. In Virgil the shade of Anchises explains {^neid, 6 , 7S7 - 747) that souls are admitted individually from the abodes of suffer- ing into the Elysian Fields, the suffering being treated as purgatorial rather than as a meting out of justice. The passage contains three lines (740- 742) hereafter to be given under Part F, which are an imitation from the Erythraean conq)osition. Tertullian would have been unlikely to teach for Christian doctrine imaginations of Virgil. See under Additional Remarks in § V. number 6 of this note what is said concerning this Harmonist. Sibyl. Orac. 3, 57.3-583. These lines, though not specially attested, form a natural introduction, and the ordy one which I can find for Part E, if we except what is certainly not Erythraean. After line 583 the tense changes, which affords ground for distrusting the Erythraean origin of the next paragraph, the one from which Clement of Alexandria has quoted. VERSES FROM ERYTIIR^. PART E. 423 § «•] And then God shall give great joy to men ; For earth and trees and numerous flocks Shall give true fruit to men, Of wine and honey and white milk, And of wheat, the best of all things for mortals.®* [Men] shall hymn with sweet voices. Come, let us bow to the earth, let us invoke The Immortal King, the Great God, the Most -High. [Let us send to his temple'^ for he is the only Potentate.] Let us consider the law of God, the Most High, Which is the most just of all things on earth. We had wandered from the path of the Immortal ; With senseless minds we worshij)])ed haiid-niade woi Of carved idols and of dead nien.^® But wretched Greece, curb thy pride, And serve the Great God, that thou mayst partake of these things. For earth, mother of all, shall give mortals al)undantly The excellent fruit of wheat, wine, and olive ; Also sweet honey from heaven, a (lelightful drink ; 745 Trees also, the fruit of the tig(0 bd Hocks, And cattle and choicest lambs, and tender kids. Fountains shall flow of sweet white milk. Cities and fat fields shall be filled with good things. There shall be no sword on the earth, nor noise of battle. 750 [The yroaning earth shall not quakei] Nor war, nor yet drought u})on the earth ; Nor famine, nor fruit-destroying hail, But great peace over the whole earth ; And king shall befriend king till the end of the age. 755 A common law over the whole earth Shall God in the starry heavens give to men. Touching whatever is done by weak mortals. For he alone is God, and there is no other. And he will burn with fire the intractable ferocity of men. 760 And then he will establish an eternal kingdom Over men ; a holy law which he once gave To all practical-monotheists ; he promised to open earth. And universe ; gates of the blessed, and all joys ; 620 15 720 Sibyl. Orac. 3, fun- Line 618 is omitted as an interpolation. Lactantius (]uotes 619 -623 as Ervthnvan. Sibyl. Orac. 3, Tl.’)-7-23. The Cohortatio ad Graecos quotes lines 721 -723 as Erythrrean. As such also line 722 is quoted by Lactantius. Greece is perhaps used for heathendom in general. Compare page 151, note 26. 424 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [NOTE A. [Promised] Immortal understanding and perpetual rejoicing 770 72 And all paths of the plain, and rough hills And lofty mountains, and raging waves of the sea, Shall be easy to travel and to sail over in those days ; Sibyl. Orac. 3, 732, 740, 743 - 760, 766 - 770. I have omitted lines 741, 742, which, in an altered shape, are quoted with line 783 by Lactantius, as belonging to the judgment, the part designated by F. This passage and also the last live lines (787 - 790, 793) of the quotation which follows it, were in the mind of Horace when he wrote his sixteenth Epode, That Epode, if we may judge from its allusion to the civil wars, was written during or after the final struggle of Augustus and Antony ; probably in B. c. 30 or 29. At the same date the Jews were fostering at home appre- hensions of impending calamity, as we may reasonably infer from the .Sibylline Oracles, 3, 46 -5n, already quoted on pp. 120, 121. The lines of Horace, intended as a satire on the prevailing state of feeling, imitated and burlesqued the above. He alludes to the anticipation, that Home, which its successive enemies had not conquered, should perish by its own hand, and proposes that those of its inhabitants who liad nerve should leave it, adding : — “ First let us swear ... to direct our sails homeward when . . . tigers may delight to couj)le with hinds (788), . . . nor the simple lierds may dread the brindled lions (790), ... let us seek the happy plains . . . where the untilled land yearly produces grain, and the unpruned vine- yard punctually fiourishes [compare note 83], and where the branch of the never-failing olive blossoms forth, and the fig adorns its native tree (743, 744), honey distils from the hollow oaks (745, 746). The light water bounds down from the high mountains with a murmuring pace. There the she-goats come to the milk-pails of their own accord, and the friendly fiock return with their udders distended (748) ; nor does the bear growl about the sheepfold (789), nor does the rising ground swell with vipers (793), . . . nor is the fertile seed burned by a dry glebe (750), . . . no contagious distempers hurt the flocks” (753). — Horace, 16, lines 25, 26, 31, 33, 42-53, 57, Bohn’s trans. In the quotation the num- bers designate the lines of the Sibylline Oracles in Book 3, which seem lo have suggested the words of Horace. In some the analogy is decided ; in others it is less so. The five following lines (771 - 775) are omitted above. They are corrupted, or interpolated, or both. The latter two of them are quoted by Lactantius {Div. Inst. 4, 6) as Erythraean, so that any interpolation must have taken place before his time : — “ And from every land [men] shall bring frankincense and gifts To the houses (households /) of the Great God, nor shall there be Another house (household?) for future men to inquire at Save the one which God permitted faithful men to enrich, For mortals call it the son of the Great God.’^ In what is left of the Erythrtcan verses the only recommendations of ritual law and offerings interrupt the sense instead of being necessary to it. I suspect that Jews who, honestly or dishonestly, collected gifts for the hanple, may at an early date have interpolate) different from that of our sun. Nine lines subsequently the Erythr;«an writer gives to the Elysian Plain a position (Sibyl. Orac. 2 , 338, 339) on the Acherusian lake, that is, in the underworld. Any subterranean locality for it contradicted heathen views, and must have been suggested by Jewish ideas of Abraham’s bosom. Virgil borrow'S from Judaism (see note 65) its “thousand years ” of bliss, but blends the two conceptions above mentioned, thus confusing matters above ground with those below. He places the Ely- sian Fields {JEneidy 6 , 638 - 641) in the underworld, and gives them a § II.] VERSES FROM ERYTHR^. PART G, 431 To these — genuine monotheists — will the universal Ruler, The Imperishable God, grant another privilege. When they ask the Imj)erisliable God to save mortals From the * flaming fire and enduring lamentations, he will grant, and do it. Gathering, he will place them elsewhere, with no remnant of bum 335 From the raging fire, and will send them for his people’s sake To another and enduring life, to the Immortals, To the Elysian Plain, where are the broad w'aters Of the ever-flowing, deep-bosomed Acherusian lake. Alas, wretched me ! w’hat shall be my fate in that day 340 Because of my excessive perverseness Before I was "old enough to marry or to have understanding 1 Even in the apartments of my wealthy husband I shut out the needy. I knowingly did wrong. But, 0 Preserver, save me from my just torments, 345 Me, shameless, who committed improprieties. And now I beseech thee for a little rest from my song, Holy Manna-giver, King of the great kingdom.” ^ Part G. This concluding part is attested by two quotations which Lactantius has made from it ; by a joint reference of Varro and Lactantius to a passage in it ; and by the apparent connec- sun and stars of their own ; thereby, absurdly enough, putting a solar and stellar system inside of the earth. The passage, if isolated, might hear a different interpretation, but lines 680, 762, of the same book, for- bid it. Tertullian in one passage (Apol. 47) located Paradise south of the Torrid Zone. This may have been an awkward effort by himself, or by some earlier writer, Jew or Christian, to exjdain the perennial day. Valerius Flaccus {Argonaut. 1, 844) mentions the fields [Elysian ?] where sunshine lasts the whole year. The author’s remarks in Under- world Mission y 3d edit. pp. 97, 164, need to be conformed to the present note. Sibyl. Orac. 2 228-348. The idea of sympathy for suffering brethren (lines 333, 334), manifested by those in bliss, would compare favorably with a conception which has passed for Christian ; namely, that “ the sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints.” The reader should, in connection with this passage, recur to the latter part of note 80. Lactantius quotes from Varro a passage concerning ten Sibyls,' concluding as follows : “ The verses of all these Sibyls are circulated and owned [by private individuals] except those of the Cum{ean, whose books are by Romans forbidden to the public, nor do they deem their inspection lawful by any except the Quindecemvirs. There are individual books of each of these which, because inscribed with the name of Sibylla, are sup- posed to belong to one person. They are, moreover, confounded (?), nor can each one’s be distinguished and assigned to her, except that of the 432 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a* tion between another passage and Part B. The opening of it is evidently dependent on some omitted portion which pre- ceded. Two lines, moreover, are said to be wanting where periods have been substituted. “ These things to you when leaving, inspired with divine frenzy, The long walls of Assyrians Babylon, sent as a fire into Greece, Proclaiming to all mortals the divine threats. 810 So that I proclaim Divine secrets to mortals. And in Greece mortals will call me a foreigner, Born at Erythr^, and shameless. Some will pronounce Me, Sibylla, a crazy impostor, born of Circe, my mother. And her near relative, my father. But when all things shall take place, 815 Then you will remember me, and no one will longer Pronounce as mad the Great God’s prophetess. Did he not show me what occurred to my forefathers ? The earliest events God enumerated to me ; And all things subsecpient he put into my mind ; 820 So that I proclaim the future and the past And tell them to mortals. For when the world was whelmed With waters, and but one approved man was left Sailing in his hewn- wood house on the waters. With beasts and fowls, that the world might be filled again, 825 I was his daughter-in-law,^ and his relative ; To whom the earliest events happened and all the last were un- folded. So that by my mouth all these truths should be uttered.” Erythraean who inserted her name in her song, and foretold that she would he called Erythraean, when in reality she came from Babylon.” — Varro, quoted in Lactantius, 1 , G. That these concluding remarks are from Varro and not from Lactantius is shown by the following considerations.' In Varro’s time the laws were doubtless unrepealed which forbade un- authorized persons to examine the so-called Books of the Cumaean Sibyl. Against the circulation of the other Sibylline writings no law had yet been enacted. In the days of Lactantius, on the contrary, all Sibylline works stood legally on the same footing, being forbidden to the people by unrepealed though unexecuted laws. Again, the statement that all Sibyl- line writings were supposed to come from one person had, doubtless, a good deal of truth in V arro’s time, and little or none in that of Lactantius. If any one should regard the closing words of the passage as from Lactan- tius, it would then imply that in his day the passage in our text was that which made known the Sibyl’s name. The word translated daughter-in-law means commonly a bride. Its signification here is determined by its use in Part B. Compare note 40. ^ Sibyl. Orac. 3, 80S - 828. Lactantius, whose text I follow, has quoted 812 and 814-817 in Institutes, 1 , G, and 4 , 15. The state- ment of what the Sibjd had accomplished should be compared with what she undertook, as stated in note 41. Line 821 is borrowed from the Hiady 1 , 70. VERSES FROM ERYTUR^. TART G. 433 § li ] The distinguished reception which the Romans accorded to the Erythra3an composition prompted more than one subse- quent effusion under the name of Sibylla, its supposed authoress. None of these productions attained the fame or commanded the confidence attached to their original ; nor, as we have already said, was there affixed to any one of them a name by which it could be separately identified. Christians found the Erythniean Sibyl, so far as it agreed with their views, a valua- ' ble resource in controversy against heathens. They were debarred in such controversy from using the testimony of their four Gospels, since these were avowedly written by Christians, whose testimony was, of course, not admissible in behalf of Christian allegations. The foregoing document was free from suspicion of Christian authorship, for it existed before the Christian era. It had, moreover, been recognized by the highest authority in Rome as supernatural in its char- acter. Its existence compelled the Roman aristocracy and their adherents, even before the Christian era, to choose be- tween the following courses of action. They could admit its teachings. But this implied that they were to renounce the state religion which was likely to involve their own privi- leges in its ruin. Or. secondly, they could confess that the whole patrician order had been imposed upon egregiously by a Jew. But such a confession was more likely to diminish than to increase the already wanting respect for their order. There was yet a third course, which was to suppi-ess the docu- ment and its imitations, so that its contents could no longer be appealed to. This })lan (see p. 165) was attempted under Augustus with but partial and temporary success. “ Many authors of high standing have written concerning the Sibyls, as Aiisto of Chios and Apollodoriis of Erythiaj among the Greeks ; Varro and Fenestella among our own [countrymen]. All these narrate that the Krythr«an was eminent and renowned beyond the others ; Apollodoriis, indeed [being prompted thereto], that he might glory in his own city and people.” — Lactantius, Be Ira, 22. The mention by Strabo, of “the old Erythrieaii Sibyl ” (17, 1 , 43 ; compare 14, 1 , 34 ) implies at least that he also placed no other on a par with her. Obvious as the truth of the above remark might seem, no ecclesias- tical history has called attention to it. Had Christians forged the Gos- pels, they would have attributed them to Jewish or heathen authors. BB 434 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. § III. Sibylline ComjyositionSy B. C, 75 to A. D. 200 , were Jewish, The compositions under the name of Sibylla during three centuries after the Erythrsean forgery were, with one excep- tion, Jewish. To this exception, a piece of but thirty-seven lines, fabricated doubtless at the instigation of the aristocracy, we shall hereafter devote some remarks. Its most appropriate designation would be ‘^Patrician Opposition Lines,” and this is the heading under which we shall recur to it.^^ The Chris- tians in a few instances interpolated a line or more into the Jewish documents which they found ready made to their hand, but anything which can be called a Christian composition did not originate before a. d. 200 or 250 . For the sake of per- spicuity the discussion of this point will be reserved for a separate head.^^ We will begin with the considerations which imply a Jewish origin for these productions, and will after- wards examine any supposed heathen claims. Firstly : Several books of Sibylline oracles have come down to us, none of which bear marks, either wholly or in part, of heathen origin. Secondly: Lactantius, in the beginning of the fourth cen- tury, lived at a time when it was not yet in the power of Christians to have destroyed any heathen Sibylline literature. He regarded himself as confronted by persons intelligent enough and sufficiently conversant with the subject to recog- nize at once when he quoted Sibylline verses of Christian origin {Biv. Inst, 4 , 15), and he had himself made the subject a special study. Occupying this position he quotes the state- ment of Varro concerning the Sibyls, among whom only the Erythraean could be singled out, and adds, All these Sibyls, IN FINE, TEACH ONE CoD.”®^ We cauiiot suppose that he knew of heathen Sibylline verses, but trusted to the ignorance or silence of his opponents, nor can we suppose that he was himself uninformed on the subject. Thirdly : The quotations from, the allusions to, and the statements concerning the Sibylline Oracles in Cicero and Varro, nearly half a century before, and in Dio Chrysostom a century after the Christian era, imply or favor their Jewish origin. Thus, Varro, in a work, published from 47 to 45 b. c.. See § VI. of this Note A. Lact. 1, 6. See § IV. of this Note A. COMPOSITIONS B. C. 75 TO A. D. 200. 435 § HI.] speaks of the Sibylline writings then afloat as not iinfreqiiently marked by a peculiarity which Cicero attributes also to the verses from Erythra}, namely, that they contained acrostics.^^ If in connection with this we consider that the Old Testament contains twelve acrostics, and that extant heathen literature contains none, it at least favors the Jewish origin of the doc- uments in question. Again, the anticipation of a “ Coming Kingdom,” or a ‘‘Kingdom from the East,” was Jewish; the association of this anticipation with that of a general conflagration was also Jewish, Eurther, heathens treated the idea of a general conflagration as a matter of reasoning and speculation ; but in the Sibylline verses which have come down to us it is purely a matter of ruEDicnoN unsuj)poi’ted by reasoning. The del- uge is also j)redicted by Noah to his cotemporaries. If we now turn to Cicero, we find in the very work which discusses Sibylline pretensions, that ho ])uts into the mouth of his brother Quintus a recognition and defence of foreknowledge^® Varro’s Antiquities of Thiiujs Divine constituted the latter half of Ids “ Antiiputies,” and if (0 addressed to Cains (Julius) Caisar, it must have heem wiitten before} CiEsar’s assassination in March, n. c. 44, and doubtless later than the battle of Pharsalia in August, n. c. 48. The following seems to be a restatement from it rather than a (juotation : “The present Books are collected fiom many jelaces, some being brought from cities in Italy, others from Erythne in Asia, envoys being sent l)y a detiiee of the Senate to copy them, and yet others from other cities and copied by private individuals, among which are found in- terpolations of the Sibylline Books, which can be recognized by what are called Acrostics. 1 am but stating what Terentius \"arro has nai- rated in his Theological Treatise.” — Dioiiys. Halicar. 4, 02 ; Vol. 2, p. 793. The dedication to Ca3sar may have been a political forgery. These acrostics are all alphabetical : namely. Psalms 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 119, and 145 ; also Pi o verbs, chapter 31, verses 10-31, being the ])iaises ot a good wile; also each of the first four chaj)ters of Lamen- tations. The reader who wishes additional information may consult Noyes, Translation of Psalms, Introduct. j)p. 47-50, and in Lowth, translation of Isaiah, Prelim. Dissert, p]). iv-ix, Boston edit. 1834; also Blayney, Introduct. to Lamentations, and note on chapter 2, verses IG, 17, of the same. («> “ Tfioiv, is a certain class of them [that is, persons gifted by nature with foreknowledge] who call themselves away tVom the body and are Ixirne by their whole care and thought to the knowledge of divine things. Their angurii's are not the result of a divine impulse, but of linman reason [by which must be understood, not reasoning, but natural endowment], since by [their] nature they have a ruioii consciousness of future events, as of floods and of the conflagration of heaven and earth which will take place at some future time. Others, specially skilled 436 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. illustrated bj those who foreknow floods, the general confla- gration, and a Coming Kingdom,” or else a ‘‘ Kingdom from the East.” If there could be any question as to what Cicero had in mind, it would seem to be dispelled by the allusion elsewhere to foreknowledge as ‘‘the Prophetic Old Woman of the Stoics.” If we suppose that all this refers to Jewish Sibylline writers, it becomes comprehensible and natural enough ; but on any other supposition it is an inexplicable enigma. The relation, moreover, of Stoic to Jewish belief®® strengthens the former supposition. Again, Cicero, in a passage from which a quotation, will appear in note 99, speaks of Sibylla as “ exciting supersti- toiiching public things (as we have heard conceruiug the Athenian Solon), FORESEE a kingdom from the East, oricntem tyraimidem, long before- hand.” — De IHvinationc, 1 (49), 111. Orientem is here used, probabl}^ as in Horace (Book 1 , Ode 12, line 55, orientis orm) for eastern. Its original signification, rising^ is inapplicable to a kingdom “long before” its existence. Quintus, availing himself of a twofold signiiication of the word, supports the believers in a predicted Kingdom from the East by the authority of Solon, who noticed (not foresaw) earlier tlian others (not earlier than its commencement) a growdng regal power, qui Pisistrati tyrannidem primus vklit orientem {Valer. Max. 5 , a). In order, how- ever, to avoid risk of placing more stress on the argument than it will certainly bear, the reader will find in the text an alternate translation “ coming kingdom ” as preferable, for the reason already stated to “ rising kingdom.” He should in this connection examine the following Sibylline passage. The absence from it of any bitterness towards the Komans indi- cates that it was one of the eai lier productions, possibly prior to B. c. 63, and almost certainly as old as Cicero’s work on Divination. “ And then God will send a Kine from the East, Who shall cause the whole earth to cease from wicked war, By killing some, and administering binding oaths to others. Nor shall he do these things by his own counsels, But by obeving the excellent rules of the Great God. And ‘ The People’ of the Great God shall again shine. Loaded with wealth, with gold and silver And fine purple. The earth shall be fruitful. The sea full of good things. And kings, ^ Guarding against wicked-minded anger towards each other. Shall begin: ‘ Envy is not good for miserable mortals.’ ” Sibyl. Orac. 3 , 652 - 662. In the foregoing I surmise that Trept/caXXe? may have been intended by its Jewish author as a verb. The sense will be essential!}^ the same, if it be deemed an adjective. Lactantiiis ( 7 , 18) quotes the first two lines as from another Sibyl, — that is, not the Erythraean. With the above ex- tract may be compared a passage (Sibyl. Orac. 3 , 46 sqq.) already quoted on pp. 120, 121. Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 1 (8), 18 ; cp. 2 (29), 73. ^ See, in the body of this work, Ch. III. § m.] COMPOSITIONS B. C. 75 TO A. D. 200. 437 tious fears. This would at least accord with the supposition that these writings were Jewish, such as have come down to us. It does not harmonize with the idea that they resem- bled anything extant, or known to have existed formerly in heathen literature. Cicero refers evidently not to documents floating among the people, but to those in the public collec- tion. Again, Jewish teaching, in extant Sibylline verses, treats the Deity as the real ruler or king of mankind, and enjoins on men that if they would be saved, they should recognize or addi^ss him as such. Cicero, in a work finished in B. c. 44 or 43, mentions an expectation as preceding the assassination of Julius Ca 3 sar, namely, that the interpreter of the Sibylline writings was about to say in the Senate, He who was our real king should be called king, if we wished to be saved.”^ A passage still extant would need no very forced translation to give this meaning, though it lacks the concluding expres- sion, which I suppose to be a translation of the Greek word crmOrjvaL, technical as a theological term among both Jews and Christians. ^ ** Let us observe the verses of Sibylla, which she is said to have poured out during a frenzy, the interpreter of which writings it was lately thought, in accordance with a false re])ort, was about to say in the Senate that ‘ He who was our real king should be called king, if we wished to be saved.’ If this be in these books, to what man and to what time does it refer ? . . . Wherefore let us lay away Sibylla and keey> her hid, so that, as delivered to us by our ancestors, her books may not even be read without command of the Senate, and may be efficacious in allay- ing rather than exciting superstitious fears. Let us deal with the guardians of these books that they should j)roduce 1‘rom them anything rather than a king whom henceforth neither men nor gods will tolerate at Rome.” — Cicero, De Divinations, 2 (54), 110-112. The work on Divination (1, no) mentions the death of Cresar, and was written, therefore, as late as 44 B. c. Cicero was killed in the following year, so that the work cannot have been later than 43 b. c. The Sibylline Oracles, 3, soo, r)0i, might bear the mistransla- tion : — Mortals shall begin to call their great defender a king, And to query [touching] their great deliverer, what position he should hold.” The correct meaning can, however, be seen in their connection. “ But when the anger of the Great God shall be upon you Then you shall recognize the countenance of the Great God. All souls of men in tlie depth of their affliction, Stretching their hands to the broad heaven. Shall begin to call the Great King ‘ their Preserver,’ And to seek [concerning] their deliverer from the wrath, ‘ who he may be V ’ ” 438 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. Again, portions of the Old Testament teach that a right life is better than sacrifice or offering. It would be difficult to find a similar idea in heathen writers who were unin- fluenced by Judaism or Christianity. But Dio Chrysostom, who was influenced by both, appends to such teaching the statement that it accorded with what could be found in Sibylla. Among dialogues in what are styled Plutarch’s Morals ” is one containing an allusion to “ Sibylla of the insane [that is, prophetic] voice,” as “ speaking things which awaken no mirth, and are devoid of paint or perfumery.” The remark, though not very definite, ought not in this connection to be omitted, since it agrees with the character of extant Sibylline verses, but would be inapplicable to any class of heathen poetry. The same passage mentions one thousand years as Sibylla’s lifetime : a duration suggested probably by the Erythraean narrative. A different passage of the same dia- logue alludes to the destruction and transplanting of Greek cities, the irruption of barbarians and overturning of empires as contained in the Sibvlline verses, and asks whether the late events at Cumae and Dicaearchia (the eruption of Vesuvius, A. D. 79) had not been predicted in them.^®^ Existing Sibyl- line fragments leave little doubt that we have remains of the passages to which the speaker referred. Fourthly : In the intermediate period between Cicero and Dio Chrysostom we have found that governmental action against Sibylline writings was coincident with that against Jews; also that singing of a supposed Sibylline verse was followed in one instance by senatorial action against the Jews, and in a second instance by a rebellion in Judsea.^^® Nor should it be over- 101 sacrifices of God are a broken spirit : a broken and a contrite heart, 0 God, thou wilt not despise.” — Ps. 51 , 17. “ Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.” — Ps. 141, 2. “To do justice and equity is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.” — Prov. 21 , 3. Compare on p. 22, Is. 1 , 10-18; and on }>. 392, Ps. 40 , G; Hosea 6 , G. See close of note 130. De Pythiae Craculis, Plutarch’s Works, Yol. 7 , p. 561. De Pythiee Oraculis, Plutairh’s Works, Yol. 7 , p. 567. The allusion to Cumre and to the eruption of ashes is in the Sibyl- line Oracles, Book 5 , lines 308 -315. The irruption of barbarians is mentioned Book 3 , lines 520 - 536. The destruction of cities is to be found in many passages. ^06 See pp. 164, 165, 188, 189, 243, 244. COMPOSITIONS B. C. 75 TO A. D. 200. 439 § III ] looked in this connection, that the verse agreed not with the Etruscan idea of a nation’s hill at the close of its tenth age, but with the Jewish peculiarity that Rome’s fall should occur at the beginning of the tenth age, or when thrice three hun- dred years had been numbered. If we now examine the allegations of heathen authorship for Sibylline writings, they may be divided into two classes. One of these belongs to and is treated under another hcad.^^'^ It is the allegation by Christians, after the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian, of a heathen authorship for the Erythrajan or other OBVIOUSLY Jewish verses which they quote. As the verses are not by a heathen, they need no discussion here. The other class consists of implications or allegations in heathen authors. Thus, Virgil speaks of Sibylla as a priestess of Apollo. In his case we can identify as Jewish the docu- ment which he uses. He was patronized by Augustus, and must have been prompted either by deference for the emperor or by some other bias, to claim for polio’s j)riestess the estab- lished prestige of the Erythriean composition. No such claim, it may be remarked, seems to have been made in behalf of the original patrician forgery. The earliest quotation of heathen verses in connection with, or bearing upon, the allegation which we are considering, was in the second century. Only two or three such quotations exist. None of them justify the supposition that heathen documents of a Sibylline character were afloat. A single one of them has been used by Clement See Ch. XI. § i. 2 ; also the present Note § v. 5, {ind § viii. A passage from Pausanias in Phocicis, cited by OpsopcEUS in his collection of the Sibylline Oracles, pp. 72- 83, contains two assumed (piotations from Sibylla of four and .six lines res])ectivelv (pp. 75, 76- 78). The latter of these is obviously an epitaph, which could not have formed ]uirt of a ])ublished document. It originated, douhtle.ss, in the desire of .some heathens at Troas to claim, by the erection of a monument, that Sibylla was there buried. The e])ita])h b(*gins : — “ I am Sibylla, the interpreter of Phoebus, To he inquired of under this stone monument; Formerly a speaking virgin, now eternally silent.” The other, or first-mentioned quotation, consists of four lines, of which the la.st one was, according to Solinus (in Opfiojxeus, p. 79), rejected by the Erythraeans ; proha hly because it assigned the neighborhood of Troy (Troas) as the birthplace of Sibylla. The whole four may have been merely another portion of the ejntaph already immtioned. They read as follows, the lirst two admitting an accurate, and the last two a somewhat coiijectui’al, translation : — “ I am born half of mortal, half of immortal parentage, Of an immortal nymph and a fish-eating [fisherman ( ?)] father; 440 SYBILLINE BOOKS. [note a. of Alexandria, and therefore calls for a word of explanation touching his views, without which his use of it might seem incomprehensible. To avoid encumbering the text, I transfer the remarks upon it to a note.^®^ Descended on the mother's side from moisture [or heat, ISoyei^Tj?] my country is red Marpessus. Tlie river Aidoneus is sacred to my mother.” The omission hy tlie Erythrieans of the fourth line would have left for conclusion of the third “my country is Erythrte,” and would also have obviated one or two grammatical difficulties. Perhaps the first three lines originated among heathens at Erythrai, and the fourth may have been added by inhabitants of Troas so as to accommodate the sentiment — wheth(T for an epitaph or otherwise — to their locality. The Eryth- rjeans maintained that the nymph’s name was Ideea (Solinus, quoted by Opsopoeus, p. 79), and must probably have attributed this meaning to ldoy€v>is. Solinus understood the same word as meaning that Sibylla’s mother was a nymph of Mt. Ida. He identifies Sibylla with Herophile (concerning whom see Addi fional Remarks in § v.), and ascribes to her the prediction concerning Troy. Both of these peculiarities accord well enough with the effort to claim for a heathen authoress the prestige of the Erytlirnean verses, but fail to indicate the existence of Delphic or other heathen Sibylline documents. Solinus Polyhistor says of Herophile or Sibylla, whose epitaph has already been given, that “ the people of Delphi make mention of her hymns to Apollo.” — Opsopceics, p. 72. It would seem a reasonable infer' ence from this, that outside of Delphi little was known of them. Clem^ ent of Alexandria has preserved three heathen lines, extant, possibly, at Delphi, which will become more intelligible by a further (piotation from Solinus in direct continuation of the above, to the effect that the lady “ calls herself not only Herophile, but Diana in her verses [in these hymns (?)], and alleges herself the wife, and again, the sister, and again, the daughter of Apollo,” for which rather inconsistent professions Solinus apologizes by adding, “These things she did in her insanity when pos-* sessed by the god.” The hymn preserved by Clement is as follows : — “ 0 Delphians, servants of far-shooting Apollo! I have come to utter the mind of aegis-bearing Jove, Having become angry at my brother Apollo.” Clem. Alex. Strom. 1 (21), 108 ; edit. Pott. p. 384. It seems probable from the above that some of the people at Delj)hi, whose oracle had now been silent for about two centurie.s, must have en- deavored to indemnify themselves by manufacturing occasionally a fugitive verse which claimed by implication a residence of Sibylla in their neigh- borhood. There are no indications at Delphi or elsewhere of heathen Sibylline productions to a greater extent than this. Clement was not indifferent to idolatry. He may, in enumerating the Sibyls, have copied the lines without appreciating their bearing, — for he was not a critical wi iter, — or he may have shared the view given in the Lexicon of Suidas under the heads of “ Apollo” and “Jupiter’s Voice,” that “Apollo is a Pi'ophet of the Father.” §1V.] CIIKISTIAN COMPOSITIONS. 441 § IV. Christian Compositions were later than A. D. 200. Ill our present collection of Sibylline Books are two portions of Chiistum origin to whose general character we shall liere- after devote some examination. Those have been erroneouslv regarded as productions of the first ccntiirv, or at latest, of an early date m the second. Writers of hi^di standing have adopted and propagated this mistake. In a note of Maran to the Cohortatio ad Oriccos, quoted into Otto’s edition without mark of dissent, the position is assumed as not admittim^ question, that our present Sibylline verses of Christian ori-in weie idready m existence before the Cohortatio was writteir^" of tlie passage to which the note is . ppended wil convince a person familiar with early Christian discussions that the reverse inference is probable. Kxtaiit Sil^lhiie nocuMENTS of Christian origin contain, if we except one acrostic, predictions of Christ’s doings ami sufferim.s upiv E.virm but the passage in the Cohoitatio alludes only to a cnTli H coming, to which we have already called atten 1011 .' ‘ Further, the ai.sei.ee from the Cohortatb and from al other Christian authors in the second centurv to. Sibylline prcdictio.isof IrneT f tJPO.x E.VRTII, implies that they knew of no such writings. The earliest mention of, or quota^ f oil from them IS at the end of the third centurv, or the be- ginning of the fourth, in Lactaiitiiis. I am not unaware that Gibbon,"^ has attributed to Tertul- .rT?zv^,“S S'r,T' ■" i- » S;rs4.?s p. 42jCSL|S 442 SIBY.LLINE BOOKS. [note a. lian a mention of these Christian oracles. The method by which he misled himself can be more readily explained if a previous word be bestowed on the object of TertulliaiTs state- ment. Christian controversialists in their disputes with heathens were sorely embarrassed by the fact that the four narrations of their Master’s life, commonly in use, bore the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, persons universally recognized as Christians. Since, however, Christian writers could not be quoted in behalf of Christian allegations, a forgery had been perpetrated which was intended to remedy this difficulty. It was called Pilate’s Report. Tertiillian, in speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion, says to the hea- thens : At the same moment [when he died] daylight dis- appeared, though the sun was at its height. Those deemed it an eclipse who were ignorant that it also had been fore- told concerning Christ ; and yet you have recorded in your archives that accident to the world. . . . Pilate, who as regarded his own convictions was. already a Christian, an- nounced at that time all those things concerning Christ to Tiberius.” There can be no doubt that he had in mind the pretended Report. Of course no such document existed in the PUBLIC archives of Rome, and some Christian probably noted as an explanation in the margin of Tertullian’s Apology the word ‘‘ secret,” meaning that the Report had been hidden among secret archives. Some transcriber has mistaken this marginal addition as a substitute for archives, an error which could happen in the' Latin though not in the English, since in the former language it may mean “ Secret Things.” Gibbon adopts this reading, interprets it as meaning the Sibylline verses, and says, erroneously, that they relate the darkness attendant on the crucifixion exactly in the words of the Gos- pel. Tertullian cannot possibly have referred to the Sibylline Oracles, since they contain no narrative whatever of the cruci- fixion or darkness. What they do contain is a prediction that such events would take place. But what Tertullian probably appeals to the Sibylline Verses, which relate it exactly in the words of the Gospel.” — Gibbon, c. 15, foot-note 196. The erroneous reading Arcanis, though found in but one manuscript, is adopted by sev- eral editors of Tertullian’s works. Tertullian, ^pol. c. 21. In Pilate’s Report the mention of this dark- ness (Thilo, Codex Ajyoc. pp. 110, 111) is accompanied by the information that the moon was then full, which would, of course, render a natural eclipse of the sun impossible. CHHISTIAN COMPOSITIONS. 443 §iv.] needed was historical evidence that tliey had taken place, and his reference is not to a prediction, but to a historical narra- tion. The Sibylline verses of Christian origin are not voluminous. A slight classification, however, will aid the reader in compre- hending them. Three pieces contain predictions of Christ’s life and doings on earth. One of these. Book 1 , lines 324 - 400, is somewhat awkwardly connected in our present copies with that portion of the Erythra)an verses which 1 have desig- nated by B. The lines which connect it therewith may liave been an addition to, or an attempted condensation of, ideas in the Erythraean document. The object of this connec- tion must have been to obtain currency for the Christian forgery. Another of these pieces, twenty-eight lines long, constitutes the whole of Book 6, and stands disconnected from anything else. The remaining prediction of Christ’s life on earth is in Book 8 , lines 25G - 323. This stands at present in tolerably close secpience upon an acrostic concerning tlie judgment. It is, of course, chronologically out of place as a sequence upon that event. Its present position may have been owing to an occurrence of the word “judgment” in its first line, or it may have originated with the author of lines 244-255, to which we will subsequently recur. Placing in the note an account of smaller portions wdiich Aside from tlie interpolation (Book 2 , 242-245) already mentioned, there are two lines (Book 5 , 18, 41)) commendatory of Hadrian which must have originated with a Christian. The address to Jerusalem (Book 8 , 824-33G), which begins, — “Kejoice, sacred and much-suffering daughter of Zion, Thy king makes his entry riding on a colt,” — is evidently from a Christian, perhaps from the author of what immedi- ately precedes it, though its position after the crucifixion is an objection to this view. In lines 440-480 of Book 8 , the Son, or Logos, to wdiom the Deity originally proposed the work of creation, is identified with the child born of Mary. These lines have the peculiarity of being a narration instead of a prediction. In the same book, line 484 is by a Christian, and perhaps the three lines which follow it. A disconnected fragment, Book 3 , lines 93 - 96, is evidently of Chris- tian origin. Theie are three consecutive ])aragraphs in Book 7 , lines 66-95, wu’itten 444 SIBYLLINE BOOKS* [note a, might unduly distract the reader’s attention, I proceed to the acrostic, Book 8, lines 217-243. The initial letters of the Greek verses constitute the words ‘‘Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour.” These lines are on the subject of the future judg- ment, the phraseology being more or less borrowed from ear- lier productions. It does not now stand in connection with any portion of the Erythraean verses. Neither can it have done so in the days of Lactantius, whose method of quoting it shows that he took it from some other production. If Lactantius did not find it in the Erythraean verses, there is no reason for supposing that the author of the Cohortatio (see pp. 426, 427, 428, 441) had it in mind, or that it existed in his time. After the above acrostic we have the commencement, at least, of another in quite a different tone and apparently by a different hand. The acrostic, if finished, would have been “ The Cross which Moses typified.” Either, however, the author’s perseverance gave out, or the acrostic has been muti- lated by time. I surmise that this fragment and the prediction which im- mediately follows it (lines 256-323), concerning our Saviour’s life on earth, proceeded from the same hand. I surmise also that they were appended by their author himself to the preceding acrostic concerning the judgment. This, as re- gards the smaller fragment, would seem to be implied in the allusion of line 249 to acrostics. It is as regards lines 256 - 323 corroborated by language of Lactantius, which ac- quires the semblance of argument only by supposing that hy a somewhat imaginative Christian, not from any controversial pur- pose, hut apparently as an expression of his own meditations and de- vout feelings, which were not untinctured with extravagance. The first is a meditation concerning Jesus. The second and third are medi- tations, or directions, on the subjects respectively of prayer and benevo- lence. 115 2TATP02 'ON ET[TM2]E [M02H2]. The initial letters of the lines constitute only so much of this as is not included in brackets. The remainder is suggested by a portion of line 257. The conception is based on the statement (Exodus, 17 , 11 , 12), that while the hands of Moses were held up, and only while they were held up, the Israelites, led on by Joshua (the name is the same as Jesus in the original) triumphed over the Amalekites. Christian writers of the semi-Jewish school, in the second century, understood that the arms of Moses were distended at right angles to his body, so as to form with it the figure of a cross. See Justin Martyr, Dial. 90; Barnabas, 12 ( 11 , 3 - 5 ); Tertullian, Adv. Ju- dccos, 10; Adv. Mar cion. 3 , IS. §IV.] CHRISTIAN COMPOSITIONS. 445 in his day these verses were connected with obvious acros- ticsd^® If we now ask whether the circumstances of Christians in the third century presented some peculiarity which offered a temptation for forgery of Sibylline verses, the answer is as follows : In the preceding century the Old Testament had been regarded as an inexhaustible fountain of predictions con- cerning events in Christ’s life. But for some reason or other a suspicion found place among heathens in the third century, that it had been tampered with, or that some of its books had been forged by Christians. This is doubtless the chief reason why Arnobius forbears any argument from it, and why Lactan- tius defers such argument until other proofs should have given his readers a reasonable degree of conffdence in Christianity.^^'^ The most apparent grounds for the rise at that date of this suspicion are the following : Porphyry, a heathen, had com- posed a work in support of the position that the Book of Daniel was written later than the events which it predicts.^^® Secondly, a forgery in the name of Isaiah, by some Christian at the close of the second centiuT, was in circulation bearing the title, ‘^Ascension of Isaiah.” Thirdly, two or three in- terpolations by Christians had found j)lace in the Old Testa- ment, which can be examined in Underivorld Mission, pp. 39, 75; 3d edit. pp. 37, 38, 71, 72. At a time when scanty Lactantius, after liis two quotations from P>ook 8, 273 - 2TS, in con- nection with otlier j)assages, says : “Some, confuted by these testimonies, are wont to take refuge in the statement that those are not Sibylline verses, “but forged and composed by ourselves. No one will think this who shall have read Cicero and Varro and other ancients, — authors dead before Christ’s corjmral birth, — who mention [both] the Erythrajan Sibyl and those others from wliose books we adduce those [aigiimentative] specimens.” — Institutes, 4 , 15. The argument, imperfectly stated by Lactantius, was perhaps meant to be as follows : Cicero and Varro men- tion acrostics. The fo^^going quotations are from the only document which contains acrostics. It must have been in their hands, and must, therefore, have existed before there were any Chiistians who could forge it, and prior also to the events which it predicts. That those ancients could make nothing out of it is, he afterwards adds, no argument against it. The prevalent distrust of acrostics will account for the lack of ex- plicitness in his statement. He wished to avoid, so far as possible, in- curring public mistrust. Ill See Lactant. Div. Inst. 4, 5, quoted in Ch. XL note 40. In an earlier part of his work {Div. Inst. 1, 4, 5), Lactantius gives as a reason for there omitting testimon}’- from the projdiets, that heathens regard their teachings as not divine but human, an objection which, but for the suspi- cion already mentioned, would have had ecjual force in the second century. 11® See quotation from Jerome in Ch. XL note 38. 446 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [NOTE A. facilities existed for critical research these circumstances may account for the suspicion in question. § V. Additional RemarJcs, Some remarks omitted in the preceding sections, because they belonged to no one head more than to another, are here submitted. 1. Touching the somewhat perplexed nomenclature of the Sibylline verses, the following considerations may assist the reader. The aristocratic forgery had been attributed to Si- bylla of Cumae ; it was, therefore, natural that she should be called Cumaean. The next forgery in her name had been brought from Erythrae, which prompted the term Eryth- raean.” Tlie assumed authoress professed to have come from Babylon, which originated the term “ Babylonian.” Babylon was deemed the chief city of Chaldaea (Pliny, 6 , 30, 4 ), hence the name Chaldaean. Chaldaea and Persia were sometimes confounded, giving rise to the term “ Persian ” ; and, as the verses were evidently Jewish, the term ‘‘Jewish Sibyl” was added to the list. - Further, the Erythraean verses predicted Troy’s destruction. This occasioned the two terms “ Trojan Sibyl ” and, as Troy was on the Hellespont, “ Hellespontine Sibyl.” But “ both the Greek and Roman poets used the names of Trojan and Phrygian as synonymes” (Smith, Diet, of Geog. 2, p. 621), and this gave rise to the name Phrygian Sibyl. The writer was professedly a daughter-in-law of Noah, his companion in the ark, and the verses gave a prominent place to the deluge. ' This occasioned the term “Noachic Sibyl.” Further, the heathens in Italy and Greece had no desire that their favorite god of inspiration, Apollo, should be over- shadowed by Jewish verses. Hence, in sopite of all evidence, some of them treated Sibylla as a priestess of Apollo, and the term “ Delphic Sibyl ” was added to the list. The names lleropliile, dear to Juno, and Athenais, belonging to Minerva, were also, no doubt, prompted by a desire among heathens to claim for Juno or Minerva the honor of that inspiration which had predicted Troy’s destruction. Such appellations for Sibylla as Deiphohe, Fearer of God, and Demophile, Friend of the [Common] People, were merely Jewish, or Christian, designations for the character of her teachings. ADDITIONAL REMARKS. 447 § V.] Further, sundry localities were eager enough to claim the honor of Sibylla liaving once resided among tiiem, and the un- critical or partisan Varro was overwilling to recognize their claims, though he himself alleges that not a document could DE FOUND admitting identification with any other place than Erj^thne. This tendency to claim a former visit from Sibylla may have been fostered by lines, probably from tlie Erythrajau jjroduction, which have already been quoted in note 18. 2. In Varro’s time the belief was still nearly universal that the Erythra3an and other Sibylline productions all proceeded from one person named Sibylla. In the time of Tiberius, we can safely infer from his letter to the Senate, a. d. 32, that the question was still unsettled, whether but one Sibylla had ever lived. The patrician or anti-Jewish party must have found it for their interest to multiply the number of persons who had borne this name. 13y so doing they increased the apparent probability that any of the writings, wdiose authority tlicy wished to impugn, might be from some second-rate Sibylla. The advocates of Sibylline authority, w^hether Jews or Ro- mans, must have found it for their interest to maintain the existence of but one Sibylla ; since, if but one existed, her authority had already been recognized by the Roman Senate in the most public manner. The aristocracy and their adherents were, in the main, unfriendly to Judaism, and must as a class have decried this Jewish Sibylline literature. Cicero had already (see note 99) suggested its wdthdraw’al from the public, — a kind of suppres- sion which w\as afterwards zealously undertaken by the aris- tocracy and Augustus. The party, however, wdiich sided wdth monotheism, aided by the othcial dignity of Lepidus, delayed this imperial action during five or six years ; and not only quotations, but also the documents wdiich have reached us, show that the suppression could not have been thorough. See, on page 431, note 80. A proposition w’as made in A. n. 32, by Caninins Oalliis, that an additional book of Sibylla sb.onld be received into the autliorized collec- tion. The Senate acted on the subject. Tiberius, in a communication with regard to it, speaks of Sibylla’s books as having been formerly col- lected and scrutinized “whether there w^cre but one or several persons of that name.” — Tacitus, An. 6, 12. 121 See quoted on pp. 165, 166, Dio Cass. 54 , 17; Sueton. August. 31 ; Tacitus, An. 6, 12. 448 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. 3. The supposition advanced by some writers that these Sibylline productions originated in ditferent countries at a date some centuries before the Christian era is contradicted by the fact, that the edict for their suppression was addressed merely to Italian localities, the holders of such documents being required within a given day to hand them to the city pretor. It would seem even that the portion of Italy in which they circulated must have been restricted to a moder- ate distance from Rome, since otherwise a compliance with the edict would hardly have been possible. 4. The verses from Erythrse treated the thoughtfulness of ^neas for his parent and child as epyor, a deed of practical monotheism. The common translation of this Greek word into Latin was pietas, piety, vtrhich, to a monotheist, would have conveyed thoughts of man’s relation tow^ards God. Duty to DIVINE power might by many have been regarded as overriding obligation to the Senate. Patricians, therefore, in- terpreted the term as follows : ‘‘It [justice] towards the gods is called religion ; towards parents [in new phraseology 'I], piety ; but, in common language, honitas, good disposition.” — Cicero, Be Fartit, 22; Opp, Rhetor. 1, pp. 600, 601. “ What is piety but a thankful disposition towards par- ents]” — Idem. Pro Plane. 33; Orat. Vol. 4, p. 571. Com- pare citation from Cicero on p. 150, in last paragraph of note 23. The Lexicon of Facciolati and Forcellini quotes no authori- ties of earlier date than the Erythraean verses for this defini- tion of piet}^ Cicero, in w^hom we first find it, was certainly acquainted wuth its Jewish sense, which he must intention- • ally have perverted. He wished (see pp. 6n., 150n.) to rep- resent, that man’s highest obligation w^as to the Senate. Such obligation could hardly have overruled one to a divine power, and, therefore, he assumes, contrary to common usage, that piety w\as justice, not to the gods, but to parents, and, by inference, that its highest manifestation was to the state. When olf his guard, perhaps, he speaks {Be Leg. 2, 8) of piety towards the gods; ad divos . . . pietatem adhihento. This patrician use of piety or impiety has, in Greek histo- rians of Roman affairs, sometimes found its way back into Greek ; thus the complaints of Caligula against his two sis- ters are designated (Dio Cass. 59, 22) as aore/Srj, a translation, doubtless, of the Latin word impia. Whether such use gained any currency before a. d. 14, may, considering the state- ADDITIONAL REMARKS. 449 § V.] ment of Dio Cass. 57, 9, already quoted on p. 7, be doubted. The passage in Plato, De Repub. 10, 13; Opjj. Vol. 5, p. 94 C. D., mentions do-ef^^ta and cuae^eia towards the gods, but calls mur- der of a parent or brother dydcrio;. 5. After the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian, such Chris- tians as appealed to these oracles must have been more than ever desirous of relieving them from any suspicion of Jewish origin. This was doubtless the reason why, at that period, the idea was first advanced of the Erythrajan verses having been written by a daughter of Berosus, the historian of Chal- daia.^^^ As the historian lived less than three hundred years before the Christian era, it would seem inexplicable that his daughter could have predicted Troy’s destruction. Such difficulties, however, were less observed at a time when chronological tables and biographical dictionaries were un- known. An additional difficulty would seem to be that any such authorship was flatly contradicted by the Erythraean document itself. It is probable, however, that only its doc- trinal portions were to any extent copied and circulated by Christians. Of the remainder a portion may have perished before the second century, and still other portions, now extant, may have been then known only to a few. 6. The present confused state of the Sibylline verses is owing to a variety of causes. It w’ould of course be impos- sible that verses composed by a variety of individuals during three centuries should form a coherent whole. Each author had his special object. The earlier compositions, or at least the Erythraean, contained acrostics. The revision, moreover, of these documents, at the command of Augustus, was guided by political feeling, not by scholarly I’esearch or honest pur- pose. The documents, no doubt, suffered from it. The effort of later forgers to obtain credit for their work by attaching it to some portion of the Erythrrean composition, brought into contiguity things which had no connection. Denunciatory prophecies, which failed of fulfilment at their appointed time, were supplemented, or refashioned, so as to adapt them to a later period. Doctrinal and denunciatory fragments were likely sometimes to circulate separately from matters of less interest. This mass, or a part of it, was sorted by some “She (the old Sibyl)' is said to have come from Babylon, being a daughter of Berosus, who wrote the history of Chaldaea.” — Cohortatio ad Greecos, 37. 450 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [NOTE A. Byzantine writer. His object was to arrange it by subjects, and although he must have done this but partially, yet his effort could not but increase the previously existing disloca- tions. The text of these writings is in many cases imperfect. Sometimes this may be owing to error or oversight on the part of copyists, who were doubly exposed thereto in copying what they could not understand ; sometimes it may be the result of efforts to infuse sense where the copyist could dis- cern none. 7. Any verses denunciatory of Rome are probably not ear- lier than B. c. 63, the date when Pompey conquered Judsea. Any mention of the Tenth Age is not earlier than a. d. 19. In some cases, however, where the Tenth Age is simply an interpolation, the passage in which it now stands may be of earlier date. 8. At the close of the fourth century a Greek copy of the Erythraean verses would seem to have been a rarity among the Latins. Augustine speaks (Z>e Civitate De% 18 , 23) of having once in his life been shown such a copy by Flaccianus, a learned proconsul, with whom he was talking about Christ. Latin copies, he tells us, were in existence, in rather lame poetry. His remark, that the Erythraean Sibyl wrote certain things obviously concerning Christ, applies probably to these Latin verses. 9. Virgil represents Sibylla {jEneid, 3 , 444 - 449 ) as writing her verses on leaves, wLich the wind blew into confusion. This idea was not borrowed from the old Roman tradition, which represents her productions as having been brought for- sale to the king — apparently by herself — in the form, not of confused leaves, but of books. It may have been suggested The Preface to this unknown writer will be found in the Second Part of Friedlieb’s edit. pp. ii-iv. In it he says: “On this account it seemed good to me also, that I should assort into one arrangement and according to stmtlaiitty of subject (X6701;) what are called Sibylline Oracles, — hitherto found scattered and in such confusion as to repel (for ^xf/ouTas read direxj/ovras) from a perusal and knowledge of them, — so that by admitting more ready comparison on the part of their readers they may furnish to them their intrinsic excellence, making plain to them many necessary and useful things, and effecting a richer and more diver- sified work.” A first crude effort of my own towards a comprehension of these writ- ings was an attempted arrangement of them by subjects, historical, doctrinal, denunciatory, etc. PATRICIAN OPPOSITION LINES. 451 § VI.] partly by the later statement that diligent research at Erythra3 had brought a number of her productions together, partly by the confusion which soon manifested itself among compositions of this class. § VI. Patrician Opposition Lines. Appended to Le Maire’s edition of Horace, Yol. 1 , pp. 559- 5G1, are thirty-seven lines of Greek poetry, which, as stated in a note on page 549 of the same work, are there copied with emendations from Zosimus, 2, G. They are evidently intended to be in the same measure as the Sibylline verses. The ‘‘ Secular Poem,” or, to use a translation which will be more suggestive to most readers, the “ Centennial Ode ” of Horace, which he wrote at the request of Augustus, is based on ideas contained in these lines, and he ascribes these ideas to Sibylline verses. Tlie verses are in so far predictive, that their directions are addressed as to future generations. These lines were never lieard of before Augustus, nor regarded after him. They were composed evidently with direct reference to a combination of events existing about n. c. 18 or 17, and it hardly admits of question, that they were forged in the inter- est of patrician ism. The objects of the fabrication may be classified as follows: — Patricians, as we can infer from the Centennial Ode of Horace, wished that an age should be regarded as extending to one hundred and ten years. These verses supplied Sibyl- line authority for such an estimate of an age. Monotheism caused alarm to Augustus and the aristocracy. These verses directed that centennial rites should be celebrated in honor of heathen deities.^'^'^ Corruption of manners had been followed by such diminu- tion of number in the biitiis of children as to awaken alarm. The monotheists and popular party urged more correct morals. Patricians avoided this, and, as we may infer from the ode of Horace, ordered petitions to the gods that they should rem- edy the matter. These verses furnished Sibylline authority for such petitions. The ridicule atteiuliug this effort to reinstate sacrifices may he in- ferred from tlie remark of a senator named Rufus, who “at a su})per had expressed the wish that Caesar might not return safe from the journey which he meditated, and had added, all the bulls and heifers wish the same.” — Seneca, Dc Bcnefic. 3, 27. 452 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. One of these lines contains a direction, that in the specified religious rites, zeal should be mingled with laughter. This agrees at least with the view of religion supported by Augus- tus, and was opposed to the more reverential and sober views of monotheists. Horace tells us (Book 2 , Ode_15), that already the regal structures of the wealthy were about to leave but few acres for the plough. Tiberius, yet later, is said to have made a similar statement. An efficient agricultural law might have offended the aristocracy. A direction in these lines that a hog and sow should be offered to The Earth ” w’as very in- offensive to THEM, whatever it might have been towards Jews.^“® The lines conclude, that, if these rites vvere punctually ob- served, all Italian and Latin territory would forever remain subject to Rome. Several questions of greater or less interest are suggested by a perusal of this fabrication. The promise to Rome of perpetual control is restricted to Italy and the Latins. Did this mean, that the “ King from the East ” should at least be kept out of Italy 1 Or was it but a ruse to create the belief that these lines w^ere written when Rome had as yet no pos- sessions outside of that peninsula 1 Or does it indicate an existing despondency concerning Rome’s hold of her foreign conquests. Compare Trajan’s medal, page 320 n. Horace, waiting his Centennial Ode in a language which was intelligible to the whole community, omits any mention of hog or sow. Was this the result of accidents Was it due to his own better feelings 1 Or was it a deference for others in the community who regarded monotheism with favor and would be indignant at intentional insult to the Jewsl 125 Tacitus, Annals, 3, 54. 126 Political chicanery may have invented or dictated “The Earth” as an object for propitiation by the sacrifice of swine. If monotheists derided or shunned the sacrifice and afterwards complained of landed monopoly as a reason why Italy did not yield grain for its inhabitants, the retort might be, “ Y"ou will not propitiate the earth; how can you expect its bounty.” It is noteworthy in this connection, that Virgil in the Affieid ( 8 , 48 82-85) chooses a sow as the animal which should point out to his hero a site for his city. A disciple of Judaism would have shunned, rather than selected, a spot so designated. Virgil, who borrowed freely from the Erythrsean verses, wished to shake off' from his hero the charac- ter of a monotheist. Perhaps the same motive prompted him in attrib- uting to ^neas a libertinism copied from the Odyssey. §VII.] QUOTATIONS BY - LACTANTIUS. 453 The Ode of Horace mentions (line 42) the chaste ^Hneas/' an idea not extant in earlier heathen literature and opposed to the character which Virgil has given of his hero. The only probable source whence Horace can have derived the idea, is the Erythraean composition. The fact that it no longer exists among fragments of that document may be owing to the acci- dents of time or to the revision under Augustus, who would liave had no scruples concerning its erasure. At the date of this revision, some years after the Ode of Horace, the aris- tocracy in the name of Augustus carried matters politically with a higher hand. In the present case the question would be pertinent and interesting, whether Horace found himself either swayed or compelled to recognize a moral sentiment in public opinion. Another noteworthy expression, Lenient to a conquered enemy,” in the lines of Horace (51, 52), but not in the docu- ment on which they were based, was less in accordance with views of the aristocracy than of their opponents. § VII. Quotations hij Lactantlus. The fabrication in the third century of Sibylline Oracles which predicted our Saviour’s history was likely enough to increase heathen distrust of any such verses when appealed to by a Christian. The only effectual mode of closing the door against expressions of mistrust was to distinguish be- tween what had and what had not been written before the Christian era. One Sibylline document admitted unquestion- able proof of having been written before Christianity, and that was the Erythriean. Lactantius distinguishes with apparent care between his use of this and other documents. For the reader’s convenience a table is appended of these quotations and references, an asterisk being subjoined to such as differ materially in language. If Angustiivs did not succeed in suppressing every allusion to tiie MONOTHEISM of iEiicas, a probable reason is, that great effort would be made to preserve what bore on the main point at issue with heathens, namely, the existence of one God. The passage may, however, have been preserved by accident, or replaced from memory. 454 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. Quotations from and References to the Erythr^an Sibyl. Sibyl. Orac. quoted by Lactantius. Proem 1, 5, 6 n I 15, 16 2 , 1 , 2 3-5 17-19 46-48 Book 3, 228, 229 619 - 623 618 (? 722 (? lust. << <( 4, 1 , << ( i c 6 6 8 6 De Ira. c. 22 Inst. 2, 13 “ “ 17 “ 7, 24 “ “ 19 ^ Sibyl. Orac. quoted by Lactantius. Book 3, 74], 742, 783 762 - 765 774 787 — 793 814 - 817 Inst. 7, 2C* De Ira. c. 22 Inst. 4, 6 “ 7, 2.^ 4, 15 110, 155 referred to Inst. 1, 14 420 sqq. “ “6 808-813 “ “ 6 Quoted as a Sibyl, one of the Sibyls, the same Sibyl, another Sibyl. Sibyl. Orac. quoted by Lactantius. Sibyl. Orac. quoted by Lactantius. 3, 364 Inst. 7, 25 Book 8, 165 Inst. 7, 25 .545, .547- 549 “ 1, 15 205 - 207 4, 18 652, 653 “ 7, 18 224 (< 7, 19 4, 40 - 43, 4^ I, 46 “ “ 23 239 “ 16 51-53 De Ira. c. 23 241, 242 t< “ 20 158 - 160 (( 257 (( 4, 16 161, 162 << << 23 260-262 (( 2, 13 168, 169 “ “23 272 <( 4, 15 5, 107 - 110 Inst. 7, 18 273, 274 << “ 15 249 “ 4, 20 275-278 ‘‘ 15 281 - 283 “ 7, 24 287 - 290 (( ‘‘ 18 348, 349 “ “19 292-294 it “ 18 358 - 360 De Ira. c. 23* 299, 300 it “ 17 420, 421 Inst. 7, 24 303, 304 it “ 18 6, 8 “ 4, 13 305, 306 it “ 19 13 - 15 “ “ L5 312-314 it “ 19 22 — 24 “ “ 18 326-328 it 7, 18 7, 123 “ “ 16 329 it 4, 6 8, 1-3 De Ira. c. 23 377 it 1 , 6 47 Inst. 1, 11 402 a 2, 11 81-83 “ 7, 24 413-416 it 7, 20 ctantius makes but two i quotations {Inst, 7 , 19, 24), one of a line, the other of little more than a line, not extant in' our present collection. § VIII. A Query concerning Bads, The names of Sibylla and Bacis are mentioned in juxta- position by Aristophanes and Plato, and this would seem to have given rise before the Christian era to a composition 128 Aristophanes, Eirene, lines 1117, 1120 ; Plato, Theages^ Stallbaum’s edit. 8, p. 392 ; Bohn’s trans. 4, p. 406. § VIII.] A QUERY CONCERNING BACIS. 455 under the name of Bacis which had something in common with those under the name of Sibylla, for the two are men- tioned more than once in conjiinctiond'^ The Christian writers do not quote Bacis in behalf of monotheism. This suggests the supposition that monotheism, even if implied therein, was not the most obvious point, and the one most extensively treated in its teachings. Dio Chrysostom refers to it and to Sibylla for moral teachings. Possibly the ob- ject of the work may have been moral rather than theological. There is one extant document among the Sibylline verses, and only one, which affords plausible internal grounds for regarding it as having, in an altered or unaltered shape, constituted a part, at least, of what passed under the name of Bacis. The lines to which I refer stand at present in the form of a quotation, with an accompaniment, between two — apparently connected — passages of the Sibylline verses. The first of these two passages belongs possibly to the year after the death of Julius Csesar, since it contains an allusion to a crown in the sky,^^^ and is free from that asperity towards heathens 129 Cicero, De Divinat. 1, 18. Compare extract from Dio Chrysostom in next note. The article on Bacis in Smith’s Dictionary refers also to -^lian, V. II. 12, 25. Tzetzes ad Lycoph. 1278. 13'^ Dio when driven out of Rome wrote an oration concerning his flight, in which he mentions the advice given hy him to the Romans. “In proportion, I said, as manliness, integrity, and temperance prevail among you, there will be less gold, silver, and ivory vessels, and of amber, crys- tal, perfume- wood (?), and ebony, and ornament for women, and variegated work and dyes, and, in short, of all the things which are esteemed and fought for in the city. You will need them less. And when you attain the summit of virtue, you will need none of them, but will occupy smaller and better houses, and will not maintain such a crowd of idle and useless slaves. And — which will seem most paradoxical of all — in proportion as you become truer worshi]ipers and more holy [Dio used these words in a Jewish or Christian sense] there will be less among you of frankincense and perfume and crowns [in honor of the gods], and you will make fewer sacrifices and less expensive ones, and the whole multitude maintained by you will be diminished, and the whole city, like a lightened ship, will emerge [from its present sunken condition], and will be more buoyant and safe. And you will find that Sibylla and Bacis teach you these same things ; inasmuch as they were a pair of good oracles and soothsayers.” — Dio Chrysos. Orat. 13, Vol. 1, pp. 431, 435 (228, 229). Dio Cassius mentions among prodigies in the year b. c. 43 — the year subsequent to Caesar’s death — a fiery crown with sharp points sur- rounding the sun. — Book 45, 17, Vol. 2, p. 314. Suetonius states {Augustus, 95) that this crown was visible during the entr}’ of Augustus into Rome. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 2, 28, makes the same statement, which is also found in Velleius Paterculus, 2, 59, 6. 456 SIBYLLINE BOOKS. [note a. which at a later date became more common in these produc- tions. A question might be raised as to whether the conclu- sion is by the same hand as the beginning ; also concerning the intermediate piece, whether so much of it as begins wdth an infinitive be a quotation, and whether it were placed in its present position by the writer of what precedes it. If so, then this intermediate portion is probably of older date than B, c. 43, and had at that time authority or reputation enough to make it worth quoting. For the reader’s convenience I give both the Sibylline passage, or passages, and the apparent quotation. The latter is intermixed with what may have been a commentary, or a distinct piece : — And then God will afterwards show a great sign, For a brilliant star like a brilliant crown shall shine, 35 Brightly gleaming from the sparkling heavens, During many days. For then [he] will show a victor’s crown From heaven to the men who wrestle in the conflict. For then shall be a great contest for triumphal entry Into the Heavenly City. It shall be world-embracing, 40 Open to all men, having immortality as its reward. And then in immortalizing conflicts every people Shall strive for glorious victory. Since not shamelessly Can any one there buy a crown with silver, For God,'^^ the Impartial, will mete out to them universal justice, 45 And will crown the approved, but will give the prize To‘‘ witness-bearers” who wage until death the immortalizing conflict; (To the chaste who run well the race of purity He will give its dOXov prize, as also to those who do justice ;) To all men, even to gentile foreigners so (Living righteously and knowing one God, Who love marriage and abstain from criminal intercourse), He will give rich gifts [and] hope of eternity also to these. For EVERY soul of mortals is God’s gift ; And it is unlawful to pollute it by all kinds of disgrace. 55 Not to become ricli UTijiistl}^ but to obtain a righteous livelihood. To be contented with your own and abstain from what is another’s. Not to speak falsehoods, but to maintain whatever is true. Nor yet foolishly recognize idols, but constantly honor The imperishable God first ; after him your parents. GO For aioju Alexandre reads dy