reigned twenty-seven years; and he died either during, or just after, the season of military operations in his last year. If he reigned twenty-seven years complete, this would be some time towards the end of B. C. 75; if twenty-seven years current only, it might be about the same time B. C. 76. His successor queen Alexandra, at least, (who is said to have reigned nine years in all1,) could not have been alive later than the beginning of B. C. 66; for the capture of Jerusalem, on the tenth of Tisri, B. C. 63, is indissolubly fixed to the fourth year current after her death. That she died either B. C. 67. exeunte, or B. C. 66. ineunte, may be collected from the mention of military operations, so soon after her deceasem, if not from the allusion to the passover; which might be the first after that event. I conclude, then, that the reigns of Jannæus and of Alexandra in succession occupied, both together, the intermediate period from B.C. 102. ab auctumno to B.C. 66. ineuntem; a period of thirty-five years, and about four months, in all; which was probably so distributed between them, that twenty-six years and the odd months belonged to Jannæus, and the remaining nine to Alexandra. To proceed, then, with the details of the account as before. The statement that Hyrcanus the Second, the son of this Alexandra, entered on the high-priesthood, Olym. 177. 3. Coss. Q. Hortensio, et Q. Cæcilio Metello Cretico, U. C. 685, (though both these notes of time may correspond with each other, and with B. C. 69.) must still be understood with a certain latitude; viz. of some appointment in that year (if at all) before his mother's death, not of any appointment after it. I cannot help suspecting, however, some in k Ant. xiii. xv. 5. De Bello, i. iv. 8. m Ant. xiv. i. 2. De Bello, i. vi. 1, 2. VOL. III. 1 Ant. xiii. xvi. 6. De Bello, i. v. 4. n Ant. xiv. ii. 1, 2. o xiv. i. 2. A a accuracy in the statement itself. It is repeatedly asserted elsewhere that Hyrcanus was high-priest during the whole of his mother's reign P; which began long before B.C. 69: and we saw in Dissertation v. vol. i. page 261. that between B. C. 37. U.C. 717. and his original or primary appointment to that office, forty current years (which, however, were one or two years in excess) were supposed to have elapsed. This would date his appointment as far back as B. C. 75 or 76. The true date, then, of Hyrcanus's accession to the priesthood, as such, before his mother's death, was B. C. 75; that of his accession to the throne along with the priesthood after her death, was B. C. 66. The mistatement of Josephus I conjecture to have been produced by forgetting that Hyrcanus was simply reinstated, B.C.63, four current years after his mother's death; and not originally appointed, B. C. 69. four current years before it. There is no difficulty as to what remains. As the first accession of Hyrcanus is to be dated about the passover, B. C. 66, so his second appointment, on the dispossession of Aristobulus the younger, is to be dated from the tenth of Tisri, B. C. 63. From this time to the second capture of Jerusalem by Herod and Sosius, U.C. 717. B. C. 37. there were twenty-six years complete*; of which the first twenty-three, viz. from B. C. 63. to B. C. 40. will belong to *Josephus calls this interval one of twenty-seven years, Š'. ern-a number, however, which might easily be substituted in his text for ks. erŋ. Syncellus, quoting from the fourteenth book of the Antiquities, i. 580, line 8. has '. also. But this cannot be the true reading, unless, by a lapse p Ant. xiii. xvi. 2: De Bello, i. vi. 1. Hyrcanus, before his second of memory, Josephus dated from the Passover, instead of the Feast of Tabernacles, B. C. 63: in which case, there would be twenty-seven current years from that date to the Feast of Tabernacles, B. C. 37. Vide Ant. Jud. xiv. xvi. 4. xv. vi. 4: xx. x: De Bello, i. v. 1. Ant. Jud. xiv. i. 2. dispossession; and the remainder, from B. C. 40. to B. C. 37. will belong to Antigonus the son of Aristobulus, before the extinction of the Asmonæan Dynasty. Vide the places noted in the margin t. t Ant. Jud. xx. x. xiv. vi. 1: xiii. 3, APPENDIX. DISSERTATION V. On the time of the admission of Caius Cæsar to the Councils of Augustus. Vide Dissertation v. vol. i. page 281. last line. AMONG those who were present at the council when Augustus decided on the will of Herod, both in the Antiquities of Josephus, and in the War, Caius Cæsar is particularly mentioned. The privilege of being present at the public councils, after a certain age, was conceded by Augustus to the sons of senators generally b. In the case of his two adopted sons, Caius and Lucius Cæsar, the Ancyran monument informs us, Honoris mei causa senatus populusque Romanus annum quintum et decimum agentes consules (eos) designavit, ut eum magistratum inirent post quinquennium, et ex eo die quo deducti sunt in forum ut interessent consiliis publicis decrevit senatus. Caius Cæsar was born U. C. 734d; and very probably in the latter half of that year: for Agrippa his father was not married to Julia until after his return from Asia the year before. He would, consequently, He would, the usual time of holding be in his fifteenth year about the consular comitia, U. C. 748 and if he was designed consul at that time, when he had just completed his fourteenth, or had just entered on his fifteenth year, the testimony of the Ancyran marble would be consistent with that of the Marmor, quoted by cardinal a Ant. xvii. ix. 5. De Bello, ii. ii. 4. c Apud Tacitum, iv. 841. d Dio, liv. 8. b Dio, lvi. 17. Suetonius, Augustus, 38. He appears, ac Norisius, De Cenotaphiis Pisanise. cordingly, in the Fasti, as consul ordinarius, U. C. 754: that is, in the sixth year after the year of his designation, exclusive. From this time forward, the presence of Caius, as the elder of Augustus' two adopted sons, as heir apparent of the empire, and as consul elect-at all deliberations of any importance, might naturally be expected. Yet it is seen from Diof that even after this time, Augustus had so much reason to be dissatisfied with the young prince's conduct, as purposely to keep him back from many distinctions, to which he would otherwise have been admitted. It is implied in Dios, that Augustus admitted Caius Casar εἰς τὴν ἐς τὸ συνέδριον συμφοίτησιν as early as U. C. 748: and it may appear to be implied in Josephus that the first occasion, on which he actually exercised this privilege, was the very occasion when Augustus held a council upon the will of Herod. But the language of Josephus in each instance is at least ambiguous, if not positively liable to misconstruction. According to both passages, and more especially to that in the Antiquities, the true account of his meaning appears to me to be, not that this was the first time when Caius had been admitted to such deliberations as these; but that he presided in the present instance along with Augustus; he took the chief seat next to him: which rather implies that he had been admitted to such consultations already. To suppose, indeed, that Caius was present at the public councils, upon this occasion, for the first time, and, consequently, that the question of the will of Herod was actually under discussion before Augustus, U. C. 748. or even, U. C. 749. would be utterly irreconcilable to any date of his death, * Dissertatio ii. cap. 3. Cf. Dio, lv. 9. 539. A. h Locis citatis. f lv. 9. g Loco cit. Cf. Zonaras x. 35. |