420 PERIOD E. 575. ii. REMARKS ON TABLE No. 13. 575. Decad of Civil Rulers. Again we have a decad of supreme Civil Governors presented to us. series is made complete from the Creation to the second And thus the destruction. From Adam to Vespasian we have found the Rulers of the Jews parcelled out into scores or half-scores. There are indeed two exceptions; but they are made in such peculiar cases, that they may properly be said to be "exceptions which prove the rule." The one is made in favour of those 7 Patriarchs, from Abraham to Moses inclusive, who stood in a peculiar position and relation to the Jewish people as the immediate founders of their national existence. We say that it is made "in their favour"; for the intention has apparently been to put special honour on them by forming them into the pre-eminently sacred number 7. The other occurs in the case of the 5 founders (sacerdotal and regal) of the Jewish kingdom. It is an exception indeed to the rule as stated above: but not an exception to it in the form in which perhaps it ought to be stated; for the number of names in this instance is an aliquot part of a score. However, as this is the only instance in which the number 5 occurs, it may be deemed an exception. And that it should have been made a special case is highly probable from the circumstance that there is something of a parallelism discernible between this and the other exception. In each case the Hebrew race was passing through a transition state— during the first it was rising to national existence, during the second advancing to the highest grade of that existence, the Regal. An analogy may have been fancied between the former 7 as fathers and founders of the Jewish nation, and the latter 5 in reference to the two Jewish kingdoms. It is proper however to state that it may have been the case that, at least on one view, the decenary scale has been adhered to throughout. We have set forth that to which we were directly led by the obvious statements of the documents omitting "the Elders who outlived Joshua," and the "Mesopotamian Servitude; " because they were mentioned in one only of the authorities, and might be supposed to have been included under "the anarchy," omitting also the first "Philistine servitude"; because it was implied rather than expressed, and lasted so short a time. But if it be thought that these should be inserted, then 10, twice 10, or the half of 10 Rulers, will be found to have been completed at every great epoch of change. The only difference will be that the point of division must be changed in one instance, and apparently the change will be an improvement. The third decad will be completed by the addition of Joshua, the Elders, and the Anarchy, and the division being made at the commencement of the μοναρχία, that (which is also designated the κριτεια) will be maintained at the chosen number by the insertion of the Mesopotamian and Philistine servitudes. Thus every change in "the Government "* will be found to have taken place when a score, or a half, or quarter of a score of Rulers had administered the previous form; and the sum of the whole will amount to 6 scores or 12 decads. Still we prefer the view first stated; and we see a further confirmation of it in the fact that the whole series forms itself into two great divisions at the point of highest prosperity and national greatness, the one containing 52 Rulers before the disruption, the other 70 subsequent to it. Before, however, we proceed further with the general question, it will be proper to anticipate an objection which may be made to the construction of the Table of this Division. 576. It may be objected, Why is Julius Cæsar included in this list, when he died 7 years before the Roman period properly begins? The answer is, The guidance of our Author is, in this as in all other instances, implicitly followed. After giving a Chapter filled with the decrees made both by the Senate and by Julius Cæsar relating to Hyrcanus' (nominally, but to Antipas in reality)" and to our nation," he tells us that "Cæsar was slain after he had retained the government 3 years and 6 months." This, backed by other considerations, we take to be an intimation that Cæsar's name was brought (though somewhat irregularly it must be confessed) into the list of the Roman liege-lords of Judæa. It well might have been so, on the ground that to him the Idumæan dynasty owed its attainment of the royal dignity. In point of fact, from the time of Cæsar's grant the administration of the Idumæans virtually began, though for a time the government was carried on in the name of Hyrcanus. Availing himself of this double phase, the cyclical computator might throw the years into one division, and the name into the other, so as to make his numbers complete in each. Of this we have a precedent in the last division, and it is a fact strongly in favour of the view we take. — Óther It can scarcely fail to strike the reader of Josephus as strange that he should state, in the case of Enoch and others of the Patriarchs of the first Table, that "he delivered the government to his son" at his death. What government, it may be asked, could he have to deliver? A probable explanation of the mode of expression may be found in the wish to intimate that the Patriarchs were to be regarded as Civil Governors, and as such to be classified in scores, or aliquot parts of a score. indications to the same effect may be adduced: In Antiq. XVIII. ii. 2, the historian is careful to state that Augustus was the 2nd, and Tiberius the 3rd emperor of the Romans; — in vi. 10 he says, "Caius was the 4th ;" and he dates the reign of Augustus from the death of Julius Cæsar.Another corroborative circumstance is that thus all "THE 12 CESARS" of Suetonius are brought within the compass of this Work of Josephus. The Author professes to have written the Antiquities in the 13th of Domitian (XX. xi. 3). So that, besides the 10 (included in the List) which reach to the destruction of Jerusalem, the other two were brought within his date.-Let it, however, be remembered that if our view of the plan laid down by the Jewish Chronologer be not thought well founded in reference to J. Cæsar, and that the design cannot have been to comprehend "all the Cæsars," the fact of there having been 10 Romans, who held the supreme authority over the Jews during the space actually included within this Division, will nevertheless remain unimpeached. If we may not suppose that the first Cæsar was reckoned as No. 1, and the second as No. 2, passing over (or, rather, including in) the time of the latter the period of civil war and divided power, then we must reckon those from whom the Jewish Governors did de facto receive their authority without reference to the Title they bore. And certain it is that Herod received the insignia of royalty, first from Antony really, (supported by " Cæsar"), though from the Senate nominally (Ant. XIV. xiv. 4, 5), and afterwards from Augustus (XV. vi. 7). As to the rest, there can be no doubt; and consequently the number 10 will remain, although the name of Julius Cæsar should be thought inadmissible. 577. To revert now to the general question. It is believed that each change of government as it came before us in succession, was sufficiently proved by its own intrinsic evidence to have had, without any Procrustean contrivance on our part, exactly a score or a half or quarter of a score of names assigned to it. The manner in which the names formed themselves, as it were, into these numbers is a further and a strong proof of this. Nothing could be more remote from our thoughts than any such apportionment. And it was not until the remarkable coincidence in the cases of the kings of Judah and Israel forced itself on our notice, while prefixing numbers to the names for convenience of reference, that we were induced to examine the previous Tables. Still, when these were found to yield the same results, it was not expected that the same rule was, or could have been carried out to the last; because there appeared to be an obvious difference between what might have been made out in ancient and traditional times, and what could be accomplished within historical days in which the check of parallel accounts would operate. Consequently, without being influenced by the anticipation of any similar results, the Divisions which had been marked out from the first, on the ground of political changes and under the guidance of our historian, were followed; and great was our surprise at finding that either one or two decads of names were comprehended in each well-defined period. - Unquestionable as is the case of each division of 10 or 20, taken separately, the aggregate weight of the evidence, when it is seen that the system has been acted on from first to last, is absolutely conclusive, and must remove all room for the suspicion that the coincidences may have arisen from accident or auctorial contrivance. A few might be accounted for in this way. But that accident or the management of a theorist could not have worked out so many, during so long a space of time and under such varying circumstances, will become evident to any one who will try to effect the same in any ordinary history. 578. To exhibit the whole in a clearer point of view the following Table is subjoined; in which also, for the sake of comparison, the average length of each decad is shewn. *The following quotation from Ant. VII. v. 2 appears to afford a strong confirmation of the fact that it was an ancient practice to arrange Rulers in decads. "Nicolaus of Damascus thus speaks: When Hadad was dead his |