had to adorn as captive the triumphal entry of the conquerer into Rome.41

The civil rule of Hycranus as Ethnarch must from the first have been very limited. It was

still more contracted when, during the Proconsulate of Ganinius (57-55 b.c.),42

Alexander, a son of Aristobulus, who had escaped from captivity, tried to possess himself

of the government of Judæa (Ant. xiv. 5. 2 -4). The office of Hyrcanus was now limited to

the Temple, and the Jewish territory, divided into five districts, was apportioned among

five principal cities, ruled by a council of local notables (αριστοι). Thus, for a short

time, monarchical gave place to aristocratic government in Palestine. The renewed

attempts of Aristobulus or of his family to recover power only led to fresh troubles,

which were sadly diversified by the rapacity and severity of the Romans. The Triumvir

Crass us, who succeeded Gabinius (55-53 b.c.), plundered the Temple not only of its

treasures but of its precious vessels. A new but not much happier era began with Julius

Cæsar. If Aristobulus and his son Alexander had not fallen victims to the party of

Pompey, the prospects of Hyrcanus and Antipater might now have been very

unpromising. But their death and that of Pompey (whom they had supported) changed the

aspect of matters. Antipater not only espoused the cause of the victor of Pharsalus, but

made himself eminently useful to Cæsar. In reward, Hyrcanus was confirmed as Pontiff

and Ethnarch of Judæa, while Antipater was made a Roman citizen and nominated

Epitrophos, or (Roman) administrator of the country. Of course, the real power was in the

hands of the Idumæan, who continued to hold it, despite the attempts of Antigonus, the

only surviving son of Aristobulus. And from henceforth Cæsar made it part of his policy

to favour the Jews (comp. the decrees in their favour, Ant. xiv. 10).

Meantime Antipater had, in pursuance of his ambitious plans, appointed his son Phasael

Governor of Jerusalem, and Herod Governor of Galilee. The latter, although only twenty-

five years of age, soon displayed the vigour and sternness which characterised his after-

career. He quelled what probably was a 'nationalist' rising in Galilee, in the blood of

Ezekias, its leader, and of his chief associates. This indeed secured him the favour of

Sextus Cæsar, the Governor of Syria, a relative of the great Imperator. But in Jerusalem,

and among the extreme Pharisaic party, it excited the utmost indignation. They foresaw

the advent of a foe most dangerous to their interests and liberty, and vainly sought to rid

themselves of him. It was argued that the government of the country was in the hands of

the High-Priest, and that Herod, as Governor of Galilee, appointed by a foreign

administrator, had no right to pronounce capital punishment without a sentence of the

Sanhedrin. Hycranus yielded to the clamour; but Herod appeared before the Sanhedrin,

not as a criminal, but arrayed in purple, surrounded by a body- guard, and supported by

the express command of Sextus Cæsar to a cquit him. The story which is related, though

in different version, and with different names, in the Talmud (Sanh. 19 a ), and by

Josephus (Ant. xiv. 9. 3-5), presents a vivid picture of what passed in the Sanhedrin. The