During all these twenty years of Antipater's rule, the younger branch of the Hasmona>an family, Aristobulus and his sons, had persisted in disturb- ing the country. They had clearly a considerable body of supporters, and it seems almost as if the Komans had allowed them to exist in order to prevent the country from becoming too strong. In the year 40 a Parthian invasion gave Antigonus, the last survivor of the family, his ojiportunity. He succeeded in getting possession of the persons of Hyrcanus and Phasael ; the former he mutilated, the latter put himself to death ; Herod only just escaped with his female relations to the fortress of M.us.'ida, and Antigonus had a troubled reijm of three years. But Herod was not to be daunted ; he fled to Home, explained how Antigonus had allied himself with the Parthians, and much to his own surprise — for he had only hoped that the younger Aristobulus, his own brother-in-law, might become niler — was made king of Judiea by Antony, Octa^-ius, and the senate. It took him, however, three years to win the kin^'dom that had been given nim, and it was only in the autumn of 37 that he succeeded in taking Jerusalem, and brought the Hasmonican dynasty to an end.
V. Reion of Hekod the Great, b.c. 37-4.— ' C'itait, en somme, une fort belle b6te, un lion h qui on ne tient compte que de sa large encolure, et de son ipaisse crinibre, sans lui demander le ■ens moral.' So writes Renan • yet the cliaracter
of Herod is not so easy to sum up, for to be a successful tyrant a certain minimum of morality in required, and that Herod, at any rate until the end of his life, possessed. Nor can we be certain of our information. His reign was a deliberate nota- tion of all the religious instincts of the people, and the friends of the Hasmon;pans and the Pharisees were equally interested in putting the worst con- struction on his acts. Josephus himself prided himself on his priestly family and connexions, yet he is not alto'rctlier unfair ; much of his information come from Nicolaus of Damascus, who had written an ajiologetic account of his royal patron, and he suggests that many of the crimes of Herod were the necessity of his position. Physically, Herod was magnilicent in his beauty and strength, and these qualities were not more conspicuous than his skill in war. He was clever, able, but unscrupulous and ambitious. He was munificent to his friemls, capable of being magnanimous even to his enemies, e.g. to Shemaia, but absolutely unscruinilous when necessity seemed to demand it. How far he attempted to gain the kingdom we cannot say : when he received it he accepted the po.-iition without hesitation, and allowed nothing to check his ambition. Yet he was a good ruler up to a certain point, and knew well how to manage the Jews. He suppres.sed insunei lion with absolute severity, yet he never indulged in religious perse- cution. He was munificent to the people : when famine came, he stripjied his palace of gold and silver to buy corn. \\ hatever his feelings towards the Jews, lie was alwaj-s a good friend to them, and used his inlluence with Augustus to obtain privileges for them in various parts of the world. Although he was probably absolutely irreligious, he respected the Jewish religion so far a-s to demand that Syllaus, the Arabian, who wished to marry Herod's sister, Salome, should adopt the Jewish customs {Ant. XVI. vii. d;, refrain from any images or statues in the buildings he put u^ within Jewish territory, and put no elfigy on his coins. He had the strong lusts and passions of an Oriental ; the position of a tyrant and usurper surrounded him with plots, suspicions, and in- trigues. As he grew older his cruelty and sus- piciousness increased, and the misery of his old age seemed to be a judgment on the crimes of bis lite. There has been some discussion whether he deserved the title of Great. The fact that his life and works left no permanent results, that his house was built on the sand, may make us hesitate to give it him. Rut, taken in his person and in his career, he was one of the most consjiicuous and interesting figures of his time. If he was not great, he had almost all the qualities which might have made him so.
The reign of Herod is divided by most historians into three periods. The first from 37-25, the period during which he consolidated his power. The second from 25-13, the period of his greatest prosperity. The third from 13 to his death B.C. 4, the period of family feuds.
( 1 ) Consolidation of Herod'. t power, 37-25. — When Herod and the Romans captured the city, he did his best to restrain the butchery of the people and the plunder of the temple, and his vengeance on his enemies was possibly not greater than the necessities of the position demanded. He obtained from Antony the death of Antigonus, put to death forty-five of the principal men of his party, and replenished his colters trora their property ; but Pohio and Sameas (Abtalion and Shemaia), the two leading Pharisees, he treated with great respect, and seems to have succeeded in making all but the most extreme section of the party acquiesce in his rule, as a judgment of God which had to be borne.