CALIGULA'S FOLLIES TOWARDS JERUSALEM. 243 on the other hand, continued to rise higher still. The Romans, however, loudly complained about this time that Agrippa and the Syrian Antiochus of Commagene,' who were both often staying with Caligula, were the true instructors of Caligula in the vices of tyrannical government." Caius Caligula's infatuated conduct towards Jerusalem. It will be subsequently recorded how this capricious turn of Roman favour continued for a considerable time to smile upon Agrippa and the last of the Herods in very various ways. Previously, however, there arose most unexpectedly from the same quarter, which seemed to smile so graciously upon the later Herods, a black storm threatening their holy city and the whole nation, and a storm which suddenly brings new life into the history of the people also, and threatens most alarmingly to put an end to the tranquillity, the extended wings of which appeared at that time to be about to stretch permanently over this nation. It was the puerile follies of Caligula which gave rise to this storm, and therefore, as it seemed, only another freak of the same accidental fortune which at this time comes from abroad and to a certain extent dominates the history of the people. But this unfavourable mood of fortune had after all its far deeper occasion in the character of the nation at the time. There was in it incontestably something so singular, or even defiantly provoking, that it might well give rise to an outburst of a Cæsar's capricious wrath; and if such mad follies as the young Caligula, who had been spoiled beforehand, committed soon after his accession to the throne of the world, against other nations no less than against the incomprehensible Judeans, came into collision with the self-possessed and calm attitudes which this nation now assumed,3 the issue of the collision was not difficult to foresee. We have now ample knowledge of the nature and history of these follies; indeed, few events are so well known to us by means of immediate and complete records as these, in which the nation of the ancient true religion won as it were its last unspotted victories on the earth.5 This king also was at that time young, and after the death of his father of the same name (Tac. Ann. ii. 42, Jos. Ant. xviii. 2. 5) stayed in Rome. 2 Dio Cass. lix. 24. 3 Sce ante, pp. 192 sq. We need only compare the almost involuntary judgment which Philo, Leg. ad Caium, ch. xlvi. (see below) passed immediately after his audience of Caligula. In addition to the account Jos. Ant. xviii. 8. 2-9, which corrects in many particulars that in Bell. Jud. ii. 10, we have the much more extensive one in Philo's It was almost a necessity that Roman Cæsarism should, in consequence of its origin and its position towards the world, produce such monsters as Caligula and Nero. For after all restraints of law had been broken down, as it seemed, for ever by it, where were the limits of this purely military power, which had become a law unto itself, to be drawn? How a Caligula, or an Antoninus, would determine to rule, was purely accidental, and the difference simply this, that the first could suppose that he might with full impunity pluck the sweet fruits of this Roman monarchia. In this particular Judean case the action of Caligula may be half-excused in comparison with other instances of arbitrary folly. When he had been raised by general acknowledgment, and as it might seem by law, to the summit of all power, and looked around him through all the countries under his dominion, it necessarily surprised him to see in Judea only no statue of his Imperial Majesty set up; and he had long before heard enough of the idiosyncrasies and proud claims of this nation. But Agrippa had always shown him the most submissive homage, and as a reward for it had been crowned by him; must not Agrippa appear to him as the representative of all Judeans, so that he might suppose that they also, when more severely warned, would be equally obedient to him? However, we know that a particular event was the immediate occasion of the actual outbreak of this emperor's mad demand. To the ancient Philistinian town of Jamnia (Jabne), where a special Roman governor resided,' increasing numbers of Judean settlers had resorted, particularly after the whole of Philistia had been subjugated by the Judeans; and the town was now accordingly regarded as half-heathen and half-Judean. Towns of this kind with such mixed populations always supplied abundant occasions in the Holy Land for serious quarrels, even from numerous cases of doubtful law; the Judean population sought to have everything decided in accordance with the laws of their own religion, but the heathen population resisted such presumptuous arrogance as soon as ever the government was, as in the present case, itself heathen. When under Caligula's Legatio ad Caium, ch, xxxi.-xlii. (ii. pp. 577-96); and undoubtedly the one account may always be advantageously used to complete the other. But in general Philo's report is more ornate and rhetorical, and is based much less upon accurate historical inquiry. Both reports insert long speeches and documents, especially Philo's, but a comparison of the two sets of pieces together, shows that at least most of them are free creations of rhetorical art. In Josephus most of what he gives is of more historical character. We learn this from Philo's Leg, ad Caium, ch. xxx. (ii. p. 575). 2 See ante, p. 238. 3 Vol. v. pp. 391 sq. CALIGULA'S STATUE DESTROYED AT JAMNIA. 245 reign therefore the report soon spread through the world, that this young Emperor liked to have divine honours shown by the erection of public statues to him, the heathen part of the population of Jamnia determined, in defiance of the Judean portion, to erect a statue of this kind, and hurried the matter forward so greatly that they put up a somewhat worthless one. Having seen their religious convictions thus violated, the Judean inhabitants destroyed this statue; but Herennius Capito, the Roman governor, the same man who had an old grudge against Agrippa' and disliked the Judeans, sent a report on the matter to the Emperor in Rome. Caligula felt that his honour had been so greatly insulted that he resolved to take bitter revenge on the Judeans generally, and immediately thought of nothing less than their famous Temple at Jerusalem as the object on which to display it, craftily calculating that if he conquered their stubbornness there, they would be sure not to refuse to pay him divine honours elsewhere. An Egyptian named Helicon and a certain Apelles from the ancient Philistine city of Ascalon, who were then in great favour at Caligula's court, were his daily advisers in this matter; and the contemporaneous troubles between the Egyptians and the Judeans, to be soon described, added fuel to the fire. 3 Caligula accordingly instructed his Syrian governor, Publius Petronius, whom he had sent thither in place of Vitellius,2 to place his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem; and it was said that the Emperor authorised him, in case of resistance, to use even half the Eastern forces against the rebellious people. This was in the early spring of the year 40 A.D., about a year before Caligula's death. At that time the statues of an emperor were universally objects of divine honour; accordingly the Community of the true religion, apart from the excessive dread of every image which had long prevailed, could not in any case sanction the erection of one in its sanctuary. This was known in Syria; and the recollection of the similar purpose of Antiochus Epiphanes, with its ill success," was vividly preserved there. The cautious Petronius had from the very beginning no proper desire to make himself the executor of 1 Ante, p. 239. 2 See vol. vi. pp. 79 sq. We get this date from a consideration of the points indicated by Philo in his Leg. ad Caium, cap. xxviii, sq. (ii. pp. 572 sq.), and a comparison of all the other notes of time with them. Popular wit, particularly in Egypt, and in conformity with Egyptian notions, 5 See vol. v. pp. 293 sq. this imperial command; but the Roman provincial council, before which he laid the matter for consultation,' was of opinion that the commands of the Emperor might not be opposed. Accordingly, without any great haste, Petronius began to carry out his instructions; artists from Sidon were to prepare the statue, which itself took a considerable time. He then gradually advanced with a great army towards Ptolemais, to the extreme south of the Phoenician frontier, and made an appointment with many of the Judeans of position to meet him, that he might prepare them for what was about inevitably to happen. But whilst he was still in treaty with them, one morning he found himself almost unexpectedly surrounded by an immense array of suppliant Judeans, who hastened hither, as if in response to an understood signal, from Jerusalem and all parts of the country. They planted themselves before him in due order, and in far-extending multitudes, of both sexes and all ages, quite unarmed, and, indeed, with their arms behind them, like victims hunted to death supplicating protection. But they had not come to entreat for their lives; they were prepared to surrender them; they entreated for the preservation of the unspotted purity of their sanctuary; and when Petronius represented to them that it did not depend on his will at all but on that of the Emperor, they begged permission to send a deputation to Rome to the Emperor himself, with the request that he would recall his command. Such earnest persistence, combined with so much calm self-possession and moderation, made the deepest impression upon all the Romans present, and particularly upon Petronius himself. Still he did not at once make known any final decision; but on the contrary, with his Roman retinue, departed through the midst of Galilee for Tiberias, which had already become the capital of that province. The state of affairs was thereby rendered very serious, and in addition to the Roman legions with their appendages, many bands of the neighbouring allies already waited for the moment when they might vent their petty wrath upon the arrogant Judeans. But similar hosts of suppliants now hastened to Tiberias also, incessantly besieging with their prayers the powerful Roman whose nod could bring instant death into unprotected ranks, as, indeed, had actually happened formerly on a like occasion. He found himself 1 The σύνεδροι, or φίλοι, of a governor, called also nyeuoves, whom he could consult without being bound to adopt their advice; they are not infrequently mentioned, Philo ii. pp. 582 sq., Jos. Bell. Jud. ii. 16, 1, Ant. xx. 5. 4. Tò σvμßoúλiov, Acts XXV. AGRIPPA'S PITIABLE INACTION AT FIRST. 247 already forty days thus besieged; but no delay and dallying of the Roman exhausted the patience of the supplicants; even the most essential labours of husbandry (for it was already the late autumn, and therefore the seed time of the year 40) suffered seriously under this general disturbance, and in conquence a famine threatened to intensify the despair of the extremely distressed people. At this dangerous stage of the collision of Judean and Roman stubborn self-will we may once more perceive the pitiable moral character of King Agrippa, who, when the conflict had already raged at least six months, still delayed to interfere, although it concerned him as a Judean, and an intelligent and at the same time decided word from him to Caligula at the right moment might have averted much misery. But this man of the world, who was dependent on the favour of Imperial Rome, probably foresaw from his interference in the matter nothing but danger to his worldly prosperity. It deserves all the more acknowledgment that his brother Aristobulus, with whom he was on unfriendly terms,' who was, however, evidently a sincere and generally a better man than Agrippa, now interested himself actively in the matter at this complicated stage, and contributed in no small degree to its successful settlement. Other members of the Herodean family seconded his efforts, particularly a certain Alexas (that is, Alexander, a Greek form of the ancient Hebrew name Helqia), son of Alexas, the friend of Herod and husband of his sister Salome, who had married Cyprus, the daughter of his elder brother Antipater, and was at that time advanced in life but highly respected.3 Other men of great repute amongst the people likewise dared to make, in conjunction with Alexas, another attempt. Petronius was once more most urgently entreated to consent to represent the matter to the Emperor in a full report, and to seek to procure the withdrawal of the Imperial command, and meanwhile not to proceed further See ante, p. 238. 2 See vol. v. p. 445. The above is the most probable account of this elder Alexas, Jos. Ant. xviii. 8. 6, compared with xviii. 5. 4; this Alexas was then called the elder (¿ μéyas) probably only because he was much older than a Herod, who was likewise then living, viz. Alexander, son of Salampsion, the daughter of Herod (ante, p. 237). But in Jos. Ant. xviii. 5. 4, there is great confusion in the reference to this Alexas (Helqia), which hardly admits of any other solution than supposing that after the death of this elder Alexas Antipater, the elder brother of the younger Alexander above mentioned, married the widow Cyprus, and that their child again received the name Cyprus. Only on this supposition does the subsequent language concerning the two childless brothers of this Antipater become intelligible; and, inasmuch as the name Antipater has just been mentioned in another connection, the copyists could easily fall into this serious error. |