Sketch Of The History Of The Roman Province Of Syria, B.C. 65-A.D. 70

SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF SYRIA, B.C. 65-A.D. 70
SOURCES
For the period of the Republic and the Civil Wars, B.C. 65-30, the chief original sources are JOSEPHUS, DIO CASSIUS, APPIAN, CICERO, and PLUTARCH.
For the period of the Empire, B.C. 30-A.D. 70: JOSEPHUS, DIO CASSIUS, TACITUS, and SUETONIUS.
LITERATURE
NORIS, Cenotaphia Pisana Caii et Lucii Caesarum dissertationibus illustrata.[388] Venetiis 1681.—A list of the governors of Syria from A.U. 707-822, or B.C. 47 to A.D. 69, is given in Dissertation ii. c. 16, pp. 267-335.
[388] The two Caesars are the sons of Agrippa and Julia, therefore grandsons of Augustus. The elder, Caius, died in A.D. 4; the younger, Lucius, in A.D. 2.
SCHÖPFLIN, Chronologia Romanorum Syriae praefectorum, etc., in Commentationes historicae et criticae, Basileae 1741, pp. 465-497.—It treats of the whole period of Pompey down to the Jewish war of Vespasian and Titus.
SANCLEMENTE, De vulgaris aerae emendatione libri quatuor. Romae 1793, fol.—Sanclemente gives in lib. iii. 3-4, pp. 330-349, a list of the governors of Syria from M. Titius under Augustus to Cn. Piso under Tiberius. Consult especially lib. iv. 3-6, pp. 413-448, on Quirinius and his taxing.
BORGHESI, Sul preside della Siria al tempo della morte di N. S. Gesù Cristo, 1847; reprinted in Oeuvres complètes de Bartolomeo Borghesi, vol. v. 1869, pp. 79-94.
ZUMPT, De Syria Romanorum provincia ab Caesare Augusto ad T. Vespasianum, in Commentationes epigraphicae, Part ii. 1854, pp. 71-150. Compare also, Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, 1869, pp. 20-89.
GERLACH, Die römischen Statthalter in Syrien und Judäa von 69 vor Christobis 69 nach Christo. Berlin 1865.
MOMMSEN, De P. Sulpicii Quirinii titulo Tiburtino, in Res gestae divi Augusti, 2 Aufl. 1883, pp. 161-182.
MARQUARDT, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i., 2 Aufl. 1881, pp. 415-422, gives a short list of governors.
KELLNER, Die römischen Statthalter von Syrien und Judäa zur Zeit Christi und der Apostel (Zeitschrift für kathol. Theologie, 1888, pp. 460-486).—Treats of the governors of Syria from B.C. 44 to the destruction of Jerusalem.
On the organization, and history of the province of Syria generally, see KUHN, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des röm. Reichs, Bd. ii. 1865, pp. 161-201.—Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i., 2 Aufl. pp. 392-430.—Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, Bd. v. 1885, pp. 446-552. Compare also, Bormann, De Syriae provinciae Romanae partibus capita nonnulla. Berol. 1865.
On the constitution of the Roman provinces generally, see Bein, art. Provincia in Pauly’a Real-Encyclop. vi. 142-155.—Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des römischen Reichs bis auf die Zeiten Justinians, 2 Bde. 1864-1865.—Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i., 2 Aufl. 1881, pp. 497-567.—Compare also Mommsen, Römisches StaatSrecht, iii. 1 (1887), pp. 590-832.
In connection with the Roman, Jewish, and New Testament history, the history of the province of Syria is treated of in the comprehensive work of Lewin, Fasti Sacri, London 1865. It embraces the period from B.C. 70 to A.D. 70.—In the Index also under Syria there is given, a list of the governors.
The Roman history generally is treated of in the form of chronological tables in: CLINTON, Fasti Hellenici, vol. iii.; Fasti Romani, vol. i.—E. W. Fischer, Römische Zeittafeln von Roms Gründung bis auf Augustus’ Tod, Altona 1846.—Compare also the well-known works of Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, Bd. iii. (5 Aufl. 1869), from Sulla’s death to the battle of Thapsus, B.C. 78-46.—Peter, Geschichte Roms, Bd. ii., 2 Aufl. 1866, Bd. iii. 1867, Bd. iii. 2, 1869, to the death of Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 180.—For the period of the Republic: Drumann, Geschichte Roms in seinem Uebergange von der republik-anischen zur monarchischen Verfassung, oder Pompeius, Cäsar, Cicero und ihre Zeitgenossen, 6 Bde. 1834-1844. Ludwig Lange, Römische Alterthümer, Bd. iii., 2 Aufl. 1876, treats of the transition from the republic to the monarchy.—For the period of the Empire: HÖCK, Römische Geschichte vom Verfall der Republik bis zur Vollendung der Monarchie unter Constantin, Bd. i. in 3 Abtheil. 1841-1850; reaches only to the death of Nero. Schiller, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserseit, Bd. i. in 2 Abtheil. 1883, down to Diocletian; Bd. ii. 1887, down to Theodosius the Great.
The Syrian history during this period falls naturally into two divisions, the one embracing the Period of the Republic, the other the Period of the Empire.
I. THE PERIOD OF THE DECAY OF THE REPUBLIC, B.C. 65-30
1. Syria Under the Predominating Influence of Pompey, B.C. 65-48
M. Aemilius Scaurus, B.C. 65, 62
Sent by Pompey, he arrived at Damascus in B.C. 65, where previously Lollius and Metellus had been stationed (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 2. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 6. 2; Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, iii. 346). From B.C. 64 to B.C. 63 Pompey himself was in Syria. He arrived there in B.C. 64, during the consulship of L. Julius Caesar and C. Marcius Figulus (Dio Cassius, xxxvii. 6). He passed the winter in Aspis (Dio Cassius, xxxvii. 7). He took the city of Jerusalem in B.C. 63, and went in B.C. 62 to Italy (Clinton and Fischer, under the year B.C. 62). On his departure, Pompey left Scaurus in Syria (Appian, Syr. 51; Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 4. 5). This governor carried on to its close the campaign against the Arabian prince Aretas, contemplated by Pompey (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 8. 1). Reference is made to this on the coins bearing the inscription Rex Arreas, M. Scaurus, Aed. cur., ex S. C. (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. v. 131; Babelon, Monnaies de la république romaine, t. i. 1885, p. 120 sq.).—A decree of the Tyrians in honour of Scaurus is communicated by Renan in Mission de Phénicie, p. 533 sq. From Joppa Scaurus took with him the skeleton of the sea monster to which Andromeda had been fastened (Pliny, Historia Naturalis, ix. 5. 11).—Compare, in reference to Scaurus generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, i. 28-32; Pauly’s Real-Encycl. i. 1, 2 Aufl. pp. 372-374; Borghesi, Oeuvres, ii. 185 ff.; Gaumitz, Leipziger Studien zur class. Philologie, Bd. ii. 1879, pp. 249-289, especially p. 259.
Marcius Philippus, B.C. 61-60
According to Appian, Syr. 51, between Scaurus and Gabinius, Marcius Philippus and Lentulus Marcellinus were, for two years each, governors of Syria (τῶνδε μὲν ἑκατέρῳ διετὴς ἐτρίφθη χρόνος), both with praetorian power. Seeing that Gabinius arrived in Syria in the beginning of B.C. 57, we must assign to Marcius Philippus the years B.C. 61-60, and to Leutulus Marcellinus the years B.C. 59-58. Compare Clinton, iii 346, against Noris, p. 223, and Schöpflin, p. 466, who give to both only the two years B.C. 59-58. The correct statement is also given in: Lewin, Fasti Sacri, n. 101, 103; Godt, Quomodo provinciae Romanae per decennium bello civili Caesariano antecedens administratoe sint (Kiel 1876), pp. 7, 8.
Lentulus Marcellinus, B.C. 59-58
Compare what is said above. He too, like his predecessor, had still to carry on the war against the Arabians (Appian, Syr. 51).
A. Gabinius, B.C. 57-55
On account of the constant disturbances caused in Syria by the Arabs, it was resolved in B.C. 58 to send thither immediately a proconsul (Appian, Syr. 51), and indeed first of all they sent A. Gabinius, one of the consuls of the year B.C. 58 (Plutarch, Cicero, c. 30), who therefore arrived in Syria in the beginning of B.C. 57.[389]—He used his power in an exceedingly oppressive and tyrannical manner (Dio Cassius, xxxix. 55, 56). Cicero also speaks frequently of his boundless rapacity. For example, it is declared in Pro Sestio, c. 43: “Gabinium haurire cotidie ex paratissimis atque opulentissimis Syriae, gazis inumerabile pondus auri, bellum inferre quiescentibus, ut eorum veteres illibatasque divitias in profundissimum libidinum suarum gurgitem profundat.” In De provinciis consularibus, c. 4: “In Syria imperatore illo nihil aliud [neque gestum] neque actum est nisi pactiones pecuniarum cum tyrannis, decisiones, direptiones, latrocinia, caedes.”—Gabinius was a favourite and an unswerving adherent of Pompey, and therefore when Pompey came into conflict with the senate he took the side of his patron, as he showed, for example, in his Egyptian campaign. He had engaged, as early as B.C. 56,[390] in an expedition against the Parthians, well fitted to serve the interests of the republic, when he received instructions from Pompey to reinstate King Ptolemy Auletes, who had been driven out of Alexandria by a popular revolt. Ptolemy himself gave to this command the necessary stimulus by a present of 10,000 talents. These two reasons moved Gabinius more powerfully than the contrary wishes of the senate, and the existing law which forbade the proconsul to overstep the limits of his province. He suspended his operations against the Parthians, pushed forward to Egypt, and conquered the Egyptian army. In this campaign young Marc Antony, the future triumvir, distinguished himself. King Ptolemy was restored to his throne in the beginning of the year B.C. 55 (Dio Cassius, xxxix. 56-58; Cicero, in Pison. c. 21; Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 6. 2; Plutarch, Anton. c. 3; Appian, Syr. 51; Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 244, 247). He was therefore at Rome on this account, mainly at Cicero’s instigation, in B.C. 55, accused de majestate. The trial was already going on when he, in September B.C. 54, after the province had been meanwhile transferred to Crassus, arrived in Rome (Cicero, ad Quint. iii. 1. 5-7). His wealth and the influence of Pompey prevailed in securing for him a favourable judgment in this matter; but on account of his boundless oppressions he was sentenced to exile, although now Cicero himself, induced to do so by Pompey, pled on his behalf (Dio Cassius, xxxix. 59-63, cf. 55; Appian, Syr. 51; Civ. ii. 24; Cicero, ad Quint. fr. iii. 1-4; pro Ralirio Postumo, cc. 8 and 12).—Compare on Gabinius generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, iii. 40-62; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. iii. pp. 565-571.
[389] For the consuls and praetors went then to the province immediately after the expiry of their terms of office. This was first changed in B.C. 52, when it was determined that five years must always elapse. Compare Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. (2 Aufl. 1881) p. 522.
[390] From this indication of the time we reach the conclusion that the reinstatement of Ptolemy took place in the beginning of B.C. 55, probably in March. Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, p. 247.
M. Licinius Crassus, B.C. 54-53
In the year B.C. 60, Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus had formed what is called the first Triumvirate. In B.C. 56 this arrangement was renewed upon their meeting together at Luca. The result of this was that in B.C. 55 two of the triumvirs, Pompey and Crassus, obtained the rank of consuls. While they held the consulship, Pompey undertook the administration of Spain, Crassus that of Syria, to he entered upon by each in B.C. 55 (Dio Cassius, xxxix. 33-36; Livy, Epitome, 105; Plutarch, Pompeius, 52; Crassus, 15; Appian, Civ. ii. 18). Crassus started from Rome and went to Syria in November B.C. 55, even before the expiry of his consulship (see Clinton, ad ann. B.C. 54; Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, p. 250).[391]—In B.C. 54 he fitted out an expedition against the Parthians, and pressed forward till he had crossed the Euphrates, but he then turned back and spent the winter in Syria. In the spring of B.C. 53 he renewed his campaign, crossed the Euphrates at Zeugma, but suffered a serious defeat, and was obliged to withdraw to Carrae. When he could not even here maintain his ground, he continued his retreat, and had reached as far as the Armenian mountain land when the Parthian general Surena offered him terms of peace on the condition that the Romans should confine themselves to the districts on the other side of the Euphrates. Crassus was obliged to agree to these terms; but when going to a conference with Surena, accompanied by a small retinue, he was treacherously set upon by the Parthian troops and murdered in B.C. 53 (according to Ovid, Fast. vi. 465: V. Idus Junias, or 9th June; see Clinton and Fischer, ad ann. B.C. 53). Many of his people were taken prisoners by the Parthians: part succeeded in making their escape; another part had even before this returned to Syria under the leadership of the quaestor Cassius Longinus (Dio Cassius, xl. 12-27; Plutarch, Crassus, 17-31; Livy, Epitome, 106; Justin, xlii. 4).—Compare on Crassus generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, iv. 71-115, Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. iv. 1064-1068. On the Parthian campaign, Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans und Seiner Nachbarländer (1888), pp. 87-93; and the literature referred to by Gutschmid, p. 171 f.
[391] He cannot, however, have entered Syria in the beginning of the year, since he sent forward a subordinate to take over the province from Gabinius, who was sent away unrecognised by Gabinius (Dio Cassius, xxxix. 60).
C. Cassius Longinus, B.C. 53-51
After the death of Crassus the supreme command in Syria fell to Cassius Longinus. The Parthians now made inroads upon the Roman territory, pressed on in B.C. 51 as far as Antioch, but were fortunately again driven back by Cassius in autumn of B.C. 51 (Dio Cassius, xl. 28-29; Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 7. 3; Livy, Epitome, 108; Justin, xlii. 4; Cicero, ad Atticum, v. 20; ad Familiares, ii. 10; Philipp. xi. 14; Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii. 117 f.; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. ii. 194 ff. On the chronology, see especially, Fischer, Zeittafeln, p. 260 f.).[392]
[392] Cicero was then (August B.C. 51-July B.C. 50; compare Fischer, Zeittafeln, pp. 262, 299) proconsul of Cilicia, and boasted of having had something to do with the expulsion of the Parthians (compare especially, ad Familiares, xv. 1-4).
M. Calpurnius Bibulus, B.C. 51-50
Cassius Longinus was succeeded by Bibulus (according to Cicero, ad Familiares, ii. 10; ad Atticum, v. 20; Dio Cassius, xl. 30). He is called Λεύκιος Βύβλος in Appian, Syr. 51. But from the testimony of Cicero, ad Familiares, xii. 19, xv. 1 and 3, and Livy, Epitome, 108, and Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 31, it is put beyond dispute that he was M. Bibulus, the colleague of Caesar in the consulship in B.C. 59.—He arrived in Syria in autumn of the year B.C. 51 (Cicero, ad Atticum, v. 18 and 20).—He also had still trouble with the Parthians (compare Cicero, ad Familiares, xii. 19), but was able to rid himself of it in great measure by stirring up internal feuds among them. According to Dio Cassius, xl. 30, these civil conflicts took place as early as B.C. 51, during the consulship of M. Marcellus and Sulp. Rufus. Compare Cicero, ad Atticum, vii. 2, sub fin.: Parthi repente Bibulum semivivum reliquerunt.—Cicero, who at this same time administered the neighbouring province of Cilicia, in ad Atticum, vi. 1. 13, mentions Bibulus among those who in the administration of their province “valde honeste se gerunt.”—Compare also Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, p. 264 f. On Bibulus generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii. 97-105; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. ii. 101 f.
Vejento, B.C. 50-49
“Bibulus de provincia decessit, Vejentonem praefecit.” So writes Cicero in the beginning of December B.C. 50 (ad Atticum, vii. 3. 5).
Q. Metellus Scipio, B.C. 49-48
When, during the first days of the year B.C. 49, the civil war between Caesar and Pompey broke out, the provinces had just been partitioned among the Pompeian party, and the province of Syria had been conferred on the father-in-law of Pompey, Q. Metellus Scipio, who had held the consulship in the year B.C. 52 (Caesar, Bell. Civ. i. 6; compare Cicero, ad Atticum, ix. 1).—Toward the end of B.C. 49 he withdrew from Syria two legions for the support of Pompey, and wintered with them in the territory of Pergamum (Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 4 and 31). In the following year he proceeded to Macedonia, and joined Pompey shortly before the battle of Pharsalia (Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 33, 78-82). In the battle of Pharsalia he commanded the centre of Pompey’s army (Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 86).—Compare on Metellus Scipio generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii. 44-49; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. ii. 32-34.
2. Syria During the Time of Caesar, B.C. 47-44
Sextus Caesar, B.C. 47-46
After the battle of Pharsalia, 9th August B.C. 48, Caesar followed Pompey by sea to Egypt, which he reached in the beginning of October, shortly after the assassination of Pompey, which had taken place on the 28th September. Contrary to expectation, he became involved in Egypt in a war with King Ptolemy, which detained him there for nine months (Appian, Civ. ii. 90). Not till the end of June B.C. 47 could he get away from Egypt, and then he went as speedily as possible (Dio Cassius, xlii. 47: τάχει πολλῷ χρησάμενος) through Syria to Asia Minor in order to make war upon Pharnaces, king of Pontus (Auct. de Bell. Alexandr. c. 33, 65 ff.; Plutarch, Caesar, 49, 50; Suetonius, Caesar, 35; Appian, Civ. ii. 91).[393] Hitherto Syria, as it would seem, had been left very much to itself. Now for the first time, during his short visit to the province (according to Cicero, ad Atticum, xi. 20, Caesar was at Antioch in the middle of July B.C. 47), Caesar organized the administration of Syria by setting up a relative of his own, Sextus Caesar, as governor (Bell. Alexandr. c. 66; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 26; compare Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 9. 2).—Many cities of Syria then obtained from Caesar important privileges, and, in consequence, began reckoning from a new era, the aera Caesariana; so, e.g., Antioch, Gabala, Laodicea, Ptolemais (see Noris, Annus et epochae Syromacedonum, ed. Lips. pp. 162 sqq., 270 sqq., 293 sqq., 424 sqq.; Eckhel, Doctr. Num. Vet. iii. 279 sqq., 313 sqq., 315 sqq., 423 sqq.). Compare Bell. Alexandr. 65: commoratus fere in omnibus civitatibus, quae majore sunt dignitate, praemia bene meritis et viritim et publice tribuit. Marquardt. Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 397.
[393] Caesar journeyed by sea from Egypt to Syria, and from Syria to Cilicia; compare Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 8. 3, 9. 1. Auct. de Bell. Alexandr. 66: eadem classe, qua venerat, proficiscitur in Ciliciam. In an earlier passage, Bell. Alexandr. 33: sic rebus omnibus confectis et collocatis ipse itinere terrestri profectus est in Syriam, the words itinere terrestri ought to be struck out.
Caecilius Bassus, B.C. 46
While Caesar in the spring of B.C. 46 had still to fight in Africa with the party of Pompey, a Pompeian, Caecilius Bassus, sought to secure to himself the governorship of Syria. He was indeed beaten by Sextus, but he succeeded in getting the governor put out of the way by assassination, won over the soldiers to his side, and made himself master of Syria (Dio Cassius, xlvii. 26-27; Livy, Epitome, 114; Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 1. Diverging in points of detail, Appian, Civ. iii. 77, iv. 58, with whom Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii. 125-127, and Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. ii. 36 f., agree).
C. Antistius Vetus, B.C. 45
In opposition to Caecilius Bassus the party of Caesar was headed by Antistius Vetus. In autumn of the year B.C. 45 he besieged Bassus in Apamea, but could gain no decided advantage over him, because the Parthians brought assistance to Bassus (Dio Cassius, xlvii. 27. Compare Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 1. The date is given by Cicero, ad Atticum, xiv. 9. 3, and Dio Cassius, xlvii. 27, as διὰ τὸν χειμῶνα).
L. Statius Murcus, B.C. 44
In order to put down Caecilius Bassus, Caesar sent, probably in the beginning of B.C. 44 L. Statius Marcus to Syria with three legions.[394] He was supported by the governor of Bithynia, Q. Marcius Crispus, who also had three legions under his command. By both Bassus was again besieged in Apamea (Appian, Civ. iii. 77, iv. 58; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 27; Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 1. Compare Strabo, xvi. p. 752).
[394] From Cicero, ad Familiares, xii. 19, we learn that Caesar once nominated Q. Cornificius as governor of Syria. Cicero writes to Cornificius as follows: Bellum, quod est in Syria, Syriamque provinciam, tibi tributam esse a Caesare ex tuis litteris cognovi. As the letter is not dated, it cannot be used as determining anything further as to the time. In any case, that seems to have been a plan that was never carried out.
3. Syria Under the Administration of Cassius, B.C. 44-42
C. Cassius Longinus, B.C. 44-42
Affairs took a new turn in consequence of the murder of Caesar on 15th March B.C. 44. Among the conspirators who accomplished that deed was, besides Brutus, the celebrated C. Cassius Longinus, the same man who, in the years B.C. 53-51, had successfully defended Syria against the attack of the Parthians. He had been already nominated by Caesar as governor of Syria for the year B.C. 43 (Appian, Civ. iii. 2, iv. 57). But after Caesar’s death Marc Antony contrived it so that Syria was given to Dolabella, and another province, possibly Cyrene, to Cassius (Appian, Civ. iii. 7-8, iv. 57). Cassius, however, did not agree to these arrangements, but went to Syria as the province assigned to him by Caesar. He arrived there in the end of the year B.C. 44, before Dolabella had made his appearance (Appian, Civ. iii. 24, iv. 58; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 21, 26).[395]—At the time of his arrival Caecilius Bassus was still under siege by Statius Murcus and Marcius Crispus in Apamea. He succeeded in winning over to himself the two besieging generals, where-upon also the legion of Bassus went over to him. Cassius himself relates to Cicero that this occurred in March and May B.C. 43 (Cicero, ad Familiares, xii. 11 and 12. Compare ad Brutum, ii. 5; Philippic, xi. 12, 30; Appian, Civ. iii. 78, iv. 59; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 28; Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 11. 2; Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii. 128).—Thus Cassius had considerable fighting power at his command[396] before Dolabella, who had meanwhile established himself in the interests of Marc Antony in Asia Minor, made his appearance in Syria in B.C. 43, and pressed forward as far as Laodicea, on the sea-coast south of Antioch (Appian, Civ. iii. 78, iv. 60; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 29-30). Cassius laid siege to him there (Cicero, ad familiares, xii. 13-15), and compelled him to yield, whereupon Dolabella had his head struck off by a soldier of his bodyguard (Appian, Civ. iv. 60-62; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 30; Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii. 129 ff., 514 ff.; Wegehaupt, P. Cornelius Dolabella, 1880).—After the defeat of Dolabella, Cassius intended to turn to Egypt, but instead of this was called by Brutus to Asia Minor in B.C. 42.[397] He therefore left his nephew[398] with a legion in Syria (Appian, Civ. iv. 63), met with Brutus at Smyrna, then undertook an expedition against Rhodes, again joined Brutus at Sardes, and then accompanied him to Macedonia, where, late in autumn of the year B.C. 42, at Philippi, the troops of the conspirators were defeated by Marc Antony and Octavian. Cassius, as well as his confederate Brutus, ended his life by his own hand (Appian, Civ. iv. 63-138; Dio Cassius, xlvii. 31-49; Plutarch, Brutus, 28-53).
[395] a On the negotiations in regard to the provinces during the year B.C. 44, see further details in Drumann, Geschichte Roms, i. 139-144, ii. 123 f. Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. ii. 196 f. Lange, Römische Alterthümer, iii., 2 Aufl. p. 498 ff. Krause, Appian als Quelle für die Zeit von der Verschwörung gegen Caesar bis zum Tode des Decimus Brutus, Thl. i. 1879, p. 12 ff. Schiller, Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit, i. 22 ff. Otto Eduard Schmidt, Jahrbücher für class. Philologie, 13, Supplementband, 1884, pp. 700-712.
[396] Of the three above-named generals, Cassius had at their own wish dismissed Crispus and Bassus, but he retained in his service, with the retention of his former rank, Statius Murcus (Dio Cassius, xlvii. 28).
[397] Van der Chijs, de Herode M. p. 18, has rightly shown, in opposition to Fischer, Römische Zeittafeln, p. 328, that Brutus’ call to Cassius was given, not in. B.C. 43, but in B.C. 42, not till some time after Cicero’s death, which took place on 7th December B.C. 43 (Plutarch, Brutus, 28), when already Octavian and Marc Antony had formed the plan of passing over to Greece (Appian, iv. 63). On the other hand, he is in error in making Cassius winter in Egypt in B.C. 43-42, since the opposite is proved from Appian, iv. 63. Hitzig, ii. 517, gives the right view. Compare also Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta Societatis philol. Lips. iv. 1875, p. 251 sq.
[398] His name is unknown. In the battle at Philippi a nephew of Caesius fell, named L. Cassius (Appian, iv. 135). Perhaps this is the same as he who is referred to in the text, as Noris, Cenot. Pis. p. 280, conjectures.
4. Syria Under the Rule of Marc Antony, B.C. 41-30
Decidius Saxa, B.C. 41-40
After the battle of Philippi, Octavian went to Italy, while Marc Antony proceeded first of all to Greece and afterwards to Asia (Plutarch, Antonius, 23-24). On his march through Asia, Antony met for the first time, in B.C. 41, at Tarsus, Cleopatra, who managed so to fascinate him by her charms, that he followed her to Egypt, where he spent the winter of B.C. 41-40 in inactivity and self-indulgence (Plutarch, Antonius, 25-28).—During B.C. 41, before he went to Egypt, he arranged the affairs of Syria,[399] exacted on every hand an exorbitant tribute (Appian, Civ. v. 7), and left Decidius Saxa as governor (Dio Cassius, xlviii. 24; Livy, Epitome, 127).
[399] Where he already had served under Gabinius. See above, p. 331.
In the spring of B.C. 40, Antony left Egypt, and in the summer of the same year arrived in Italy, with the intention of engaging in conflict with Octavian; but after some unimportant skirmishing, he concluded with him at Brundisium a treaty, according to which the provinces were to be partitioned between Octavian and Antony, in such a way that the former should have the West and the latter the East (Appian, Civ. v. 52-65; Dio Cassius, xlviii. 27-28. The dividing line was at Scodra, now called Scutari, in Illyria, Appian, v. 65). Antony remained for somewhere about a year in Italy, during which time he appointed several vassal kings, among whom was Herod,[400] and then went in autumn of B.C. 39 to Athens (Appian, Civ. v. 75-76; Dio Cassius, xlviii. 39), where, with several intervals of absence, he remained till the spring of B.C. 36 (Drumann, Geschichte Roms, i. 441 f., 447 f.).
[400] Appian, Civ. v. 75: ἵστη δέ πῃ καὶ βασιλέας, οὓς δοκιμάσειεν, ἐπὶ φόροις ἄρα τεταγμένοις, Πόντου μὲν Δαρεῖον τὸν Φαρνάκους τοῦ Μιθριδάτου, Ἰδουμαίων δὲ καὶ Σαμαρέων Ἡρώδην, Ἀμύνταν δὲ Πισιδῶν, καὶ Πολέμωνα μέρους Κιλικίας, καὶ ἑτέρους ἐς ἕτερα ἔθνη. Also some appointments of later times (B.C. 35) in Dio Cassius, xlix. 32. Compare Plutarch, Antonius, 36: πολλοῖς ἐχαρίζετο τετραρχίας καὶ βασιλείας ἐθνῶν μεγάλων, ἰδιώταις οὗσι, πολλοὺς δʼ ἀφῃρεῖτο βασιλείας.
At the time when Antony secured to himself from Octavian the rule over the East, a large portion of the eastern territory, the whole province of Syria, had been taken possession of by the Parthians. These had, in B.C. 42, just about the time when Cassius left Syria (Appian, Civ. iv. 63), been invited by Cassius to join a league against Octavian and Antony. But nothing came of that plan then, for the whole programme fell through at Philippi, and the negotiations that had been for a long while under consideration were brought to an end. But Labienus, the chief of the embassy, remained at the Parthian court, and succeeded by his persistent representations in persuading King Orodes at length to make an inroad upon the Roman territory. As early perhaps as the autumn of B.C. 41, at latest in the spring of B.C. 40, a great Parthian army, under the command of Labienus and Pacorus, the son of King Orodes, invaded Syria, and attacked Decidius Saxa, who fell in the battle. He then conquered all Syria, Phoenicia (with the exception only of Tyre), and Palestine, and finally pressed on to Asia Minor, and even went as fur as the Ionian coast (Dio Cassius, xlviii. 24-26; Appian, Syr. 51; Civ. v. 65; Plutarch, Antonius, 30; Livy, Epitome, 127).—On the chronology, see especially, Bürcklein, Quellen und Chronologie der römisch-parthenischen Feldzüge in den Jahren 713-718 d. St. (Leipziger Dissertat. 1879) pp. 49-51. Generally, Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer (Tüb. 1888), p. 93 ff., and the literature there referred to by Gutschmid.
P. Ventidius, B.C. 39-38
Toward the end of the year B.C. 40, according to Bürcklein, or, according to the usual reckoning, in B.C. 39, Antony sent P. Ventidius with an army to Asia. This general, in B.C. 39, drove Labienus back to Taurus, and defeated him there in a decisive battle. Labienus was himself taken prisoner and put to death. Ventidius then overran Cilicia, gained a victory over Pharnapates, a general under Pacorus, at Amanus, the mountain boundary between Cilicia and Syria, and took possession now without difficulty of Syria and Palestine (Dio Cassius, xlviii. 39-41; Livy, Epitome, 127; Plutarch, Antonius, 33).[401]—In B.C. 38 the Parthians made a new invasion, but suffered a complete defeat in the district of Cyrrestic at the hands of Ventidius. Pacorus was slain in the battle, on the same day on which Crassus had fallen fifteen years before. This gives as the date of the battle V. Idus Junias, or 9th June (Dio Cassius, xlix. 19-20; Livy, Epitome, 128; Plutarch, Antonius, 34. Compare also Dio Cassius, xlix. 21: ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἑκατέρου τοῦ ἔτους ἀμφότερα συνηνέχθη).—Ventidius now went forth against Antiochus of Comagene. While he laid siege to his enemy in Samosata, Antony himself arrived, dismissed Ventidius, and continued the siege. But he met with little success, was satisfied with an apparent submission on the part of Antiochus, and went back to Athens, leaving C. Sosius governor in Syria (Dio Cassius, xlix. 20-22; Plutarch, Antonius, 34).—On the chronology, see Bürcklein, Quellen und Chronologie des röm. parth. Feldzüge, pp. 51-61.
[401] That all this happened during the year B.C. 39, is distinctly stated in Dio Cassius, xlviii. 43, init.
C. Sosius, B.C. 38-37
Sosius completed the subjugation of Syria by conquering the Jewish king Antigonus, the confederate of the Parthians, and taking Jerusalem. He then set up Herod as king, who had been nominated before by Antony. Dio Cassius, xlix. 22, assigns this to B.C. 38, under the consulship of Ap. Claudius Pulcher, and C. Norbanus Flaccus. But compare what is said under § 14.
In the year B.C. 36 Antony himself again appeared in the East. Wishing to deal a decisive blow at the Parthians, he advanced against them with a great force, but accomplished nothing, and was obliged, after the beginning of the winter, to retire again with heavy losses (compare Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans, pp. 97-101).—But before he went forth against the Parthians, in the spring of B.C. 36, he had again met with Cleopatra in Syria. And after his return from that unfortunate expedition, he gave himself up in Leuke Kome, between Sidon and Berytus, to the usual luxurious indulgences in her company (Dio Cassius, xlix. 23-31; Plutarch, Antonius, 36-51).—He then followed her, before the end of the year B.C. 36 (Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, p. 358 f.), to Egypt, and remained there till B.C. 33, abandoning himself to unbounded revels and pleasures, which were interrupted only by two short campaigns against Armenia in B.C. 34 and B.C. 33 (Dio Cassius, xlix. 33, 39-41, 44; Plutarch, Antonius, 52-53; Drumann, Geschichte Roms, i. 461-467; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. i. 1, 2 Aufl. p, 1178).
During this period and that immediately following, down to the battle of Actium, only two governors of Syria are known to us.
L. Munacius Plancus, B.C. 35
In B.C. 35, while L. Cornificius and Sextus Pompeius were consuls (Dio Cassius, xlix. 18), Sextus Pompeius, who after his defeat by Octavian had fled to Asia Minor, was there put to death. Appian, Civ. v. 144, says that it is uncertain whether the order for his execution was given by Antony himself or by Plancus the governor of Syria (εἰσὶ δʼ οἳ Πλάγκον, οὐκ Ἀντώνιον λέγουσιν ἐπιστεῖλαι, ἄρχοντα Συρίας). We see from this incidental statement that at this time L. Munacius Plancus was governor of Syria. He was one of the most trusty friends of Antony, but went over to the side of Octavian before the outbreak of the war between that prince and Antony in B.C. 32 (Dio Cassius, 1. 3).—Compare also generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, iv. 207-213; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. v. 204-208; Borghesi, Oeuvres, ii. 83 ff.
L. Calpurnius Bibulus, B.C. 32-31 (?)
Appian, Civ. iv. 38, makes a passing reference to L. Bibulus among the conspirators who subsequently effected a reconciliation with Octavian and Antony. “But Bibulus reconciled himself [with Antony and Octavian] at the same time as Messala, and served under Antony as the commander of a ship, and was often employed in negotiations for peace between Antony and Octavian, and was appointed by Antony governor of Syria, and died while he held the office of governor.”[402] Since Bibulus is here said to have died during his governorship, but was, according to the evidence of the coins, alive at least in B.C. 33 (Drumann; Geschichte Roms, ii. 106), Noris, Cenot. Pison. p. 286; Schöpflin, p. 477, and others correctly place his term as governor in the period of the wars between Antony and Octavian. Compare also Drumann, Geschichte Roms, ii. 105 f.; Borghesi, Oeuvres, ii. 92 ff.; Lewin, Fasti sacri, n. 581. The coins in Babelon, Monnaies de la république romaine, t. i. 1885, p. 304 sq.
[402] Βίβουλος δὲ ἐσπείσατο ἅμα τῷ Μεσσάλᾳ, καὶ ἐναυάρχησεν Ἀντωνίῳ, διαλλαγάς τε πολλάκις Ἀντωνίῳ καὶ Καίσαρι ἐς ἀλλήλους ἐπόρθμευσε, καὶ στρατηγὸς ἀπεδείχθη Συρίας ὑπʼ Ἀντωνίου, καὶ στρατηγῶν ἔτι αὐτῆς ἀπέθανεν.
Antony was meanwhile becoming more and more enslaved by the caresses of Cleopatra. He had allowed himself to be persuaded to promise Roman provinces to her and to her children. Thus Cleopatra obtained, among others, Coele-Syria, Phoenicia as far as Eleutherus, with the exception of Tyre and Sidon, portions of Judea and Arabia, which were taken away from their kings Herod and Malchus, and, finally, a part of Iturea, the king of which, Lysanias, had been slain (Josephus, Antiq. xv. 3. 8, 4. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i. 18. 5; Dio Cassius, xlix. 32; Plutarch, Antonius, 36. On the time at which these donations were made, see below at § 15). Cleopatra’s son, Ptolemy, whom she had borne to Antony, at a somewhat later period obtained Syria as far as the Euphrates and Phoenicia, while Coele-Syria continued the portion of his mother (so Plutarch, Antonius, 54; compare Dio Cassius, xlix. 41). See generally, Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, 2 Aufl. p. 118.—These donations were not indeed confirmed by the senate (Dio Cassius, xlix. 41). And the glory of Antony soon came to an end. After the last Armenian campaign of B.C. 33 he went to Greece. While he was there in B.C. 32 the war between him and Octavian broke out, and in the following year, by the battle of Actium of 2nd September B.C. 31, the power of Antony was finally and completely overthrown.
II. THE PERIOD OF THE EMPIRE, B.C. 30-A.D. 70
1. Octavianus Augustus, B.C. 30-19th August A.D. 14
Q. Didius, B.C. 30
After the battle of Actium, Antony fled to Egypt. Octavian pursued him, but was obliged, on account of the unfavourable season, to pass the winter in Samos (Suetonius, Augustus, 17). It was not until the year B.C. 30 that he made a land journey through Asia and Syria (Asiae Syriaeque circuitu Aegyptum petit, Suetonius, Augustus, 17) to Egypt, where, on 1st August B.C. 30, before the gates of Alexandria, he engaged in a battle in which Antony was beaten, while at the same time his fleet went over to Octavian. In consequence of this, Antony and Cleopatra took away their own lives, and Octavian became supreme and absolute sovereign over the whole of the Roman empire (Dio Cassius, li. 1-14; Plutarch, Antonius, 69-86. Compare Clinton, ad ann. 30; Fischer, Zeittafeln, p. 370 f.).
During the period that elapsed between the battle of Actium and the death of Antony, from September B.C. 31 to August B.C. 30, a certain Q. Didius is said to have been governor of Syria. He incited the Arab tribes to burn the ships which had been built for Antony in the Arabian Gulf, and prevented the gladiators, who sought to proceed from Cyzicus to the aid of Antony, from passing over into Egypt, in which King Herod also lent him assistance (Dio Cassius, li. 7; Josephus, Antiq. xv. 6. 7).—It seems that this Didius had been appointed by Antony; but after the battle of Actium, when he saw that the cause of Antony was lost, he joined the party of Octavian.
Toward the end of B.C. 30 Octavian returned back again from Egypt to Syria, and now for the first time had affairs there thoroughly well arranged (Dio Cassias, li. 18). The winter of B.C. 30-29 was spent by Octavian in Asia.
M. Messala Corvinus, B.C. 29
Those gladiators whom Didius had prevented from taking part in the campaign in Egypt, were driven about into various places, and ultimately slain by Messala, i.e. M. Messala Corvinus, consul of the year B.C. 31 (Dio Cassius, li. 7). Messala must therefore have been governor of Syria after Didius.
M. Tullius Cicero, B.C. 28(?)
From Appian, Civ. iv. 51, we know that M. Tullius Cicero, the son of the great orator, after he had held the office of consul for the year B.C. 30, was appointed governor of Syria But nothing can with certainty be said about the time of his administration. Schöpflin, p. 478, and Zumpt, ii. 74 sq., make him follow immediately after Messala. Mommsen was formerly disposed to set him down in the period following the year 741 A.U., or B.C. 13 (Res gestae divi Augusti, 1 Aufl. p. 114 f.), but now leaves the date of his governorship undetermined (Res gestae, 2 Aufl. p. 165). The words of Appian are at least favourable to the view of Schöpflin and Zumpt.[403] The inscription on which Cicero is mentioned as governor of Syria (Orelli, Inscr. Lat. n. 572) has now been proved to be not genuine (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. x. falsae n. 704*; Mommsen, Res gestae divi Augusti, p. 165, note).—Compare generally, Drumann, Geschichte Roms, vi. 711-719; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. vi. 2. 2232 ff.).
[403] Ἐπὶ δʼ ἐκείυοις αὐτὸν ὁ Καῖσαρ, ἐς ἀπολογίαν τῆς Κικέρωνος ἐκδόσεως, ἱερέα τε εὐθὺς ἀπέφηνε καὶ ὕπατον οὐ πολὺ ὕστερον καὶ Συρίας στρατηγόν.—Augustus had now the opportunity of making up to the son for the wrong done to his father, and he sought to do so as soon and as completely as possible. He would therefore give him a province as soon as he could after his consulship, and not allow seventeen years or more to pass.
In B.C. 27 the well-known partition of the Roman provinces between Augustus and the senate was carried out. Augustus had hitherto administered all the provinces through his legates. But now he gave a part of them back to the senate, reserving to himself only the more important, that is, those which were most difficult to manage. Among the latter was Syria, which was in itself one of the most important of the provinces, and which, on account of the attacks which were constantly threatened on its eastern frontier, could not be left without a strong military guard.[404]
[404] Compare on this partition of the provinces, especially Dio Cassius, liii. 12; also Strabo, xvii. p. 840; Suetonius, Augustus, 47.—The more important modifications which Augustus, partly now and partly at a later period (according to Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, p. 380, with reference to the Western Provinces in B.C. 27-24, with reference to the Eastern Provinces in B.C. 22-19), introduced into the administration of the provinces are essentially as follows (compare especially, Dio Cassius, liii. 13-15; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, Bd. i., 2 Aufl. 1881, pp. 543-557; and Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, 1 Aufl. ii. 1. 217-246; comp. also i. 303-308):—
(a) In regard to the senatorial provinces. They were divided into two classes: into those that were administered by such as had been consuls, and into those that were administered by such as had been praetors. Only Africa and Asia were consular provinces, all the rest were praetorian—All governors, even if but for a year, were chosen by lot. The lex Pompeia of B.C. 52, however, required that at least five years should elapse between their holding of the office in the capital and their departure to their province. The interval was frequently longer.—The two consuls to whose turn the appointments came then cast lots for the two consular provinces, Africa and Asia (those to whom the appointments fell were not always the oldest consuls; see Zippel, Die Losung der konsularischen Prokonsuln in der früheren Kaiserzeit, Königsberg, Progr. 1883).—In like manner the praetors chosen for provincial appointments cast lots for praetorian provinces (particulars in regard to them, however, are not certainly known).—The governors of the senatorial provinces had all the title of proconsuls, whether they had before been consuls or only praetors; but the proconsuls of Africa and Asia had twelve lictors, the others only six.—None of the governors of senatorial provinces had an army at their command, but only a small garrison sufficient for the purpose of maintaining order. An exception was made only in the case of Africa, where a legion was stationed, which, however, was subsequently put under the charge of the legate of Numidia.
(b) In regard to the imperial provinces. They, too, were divided into those administered by such as had been consuls and those administered by such as had been praetors, and, besides, there were some which were administered by simple knights.—All the governors were nominated independently by the emperor, on whose pleasure it depended solely how long their term of office should be.—The governors of consular provinces (to which also Syria belonged), as well as those of praetorian provinces, were called legati Augusti pro praetore (Dio Cassius, liii. 13:τοὺς δὲ ἑτέρους ὑπό τε ἑαυτοῦ αἱρεῖσθαι καὶ πρεσβευτὰς αὐτοῦ ἀντιστρατήγους τε ὀνομάζεσθαι, κἂν ἐκ τῶν ὑπατευκότων ὦσι, διέταξε. Among the inscriptions is found: LEG ∙ AVG ∙ PB ∙ PR ∙ On later modifications of this rule, see Waddington, Inscriptions de la Syrie, Explanations to Nos. 2212 and 2602), and all of them had five lictors (not six, as formerly was supposed, on the ground of a false reading of Dio Cassius; see against that, Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i. 308; Marquardt, Saatsverwaltung, i. 550).—As distinguished from governors of the senatorial provinces, and to indicate their military authority, they had the paludamentum, and wore a sword.
Varro, Down to B.C. 23
Immediately before Agrippa had been sent to the East (in B.C. 23), a certain Varro is spoken of as governor of Syria (Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4). Whether this was one of the otherwise well-known bearers of that name can no longer be determined. It is equally uncertain when he first went to Syria.—Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 75-78, identifies our Varro with the Terentius Varro referred to by Dio Cassius, liii. 25, and Strabo, iv. 6. 7, p. 205, who in B.C. 25, as legate of Augustus, subdued the Salassi, a nation of Gallia Transpadana, and, at least according to Zumpt’s conjecture, died in B.C. 24. Zumpt therefore assigns his administration of Syria to the years B.C. 28-26.[405] But Josephus affirms decidedly that our Varro was still in Syria when Augustus gifted to Herod the district of Trachonitis,[406] which Zumpt correctly places at the end of B.C. 24 or beginning of B.C. 23. Varro must then have been still in Syria, and so cannot be identical with that Terentius Varro.—On the other hand, Mommsen’s view (Res gestae, p. 165 sq.), that Varro may have been a legate of Agrippa, is also improbable; for Josephus places Varro in the period preceding that of Agrippa’s stay in the East.
[405] In the blank that has hitherto existed between Varro and Agrippa, Zumpt places C. Sentius Saturninus. But inasmuch as Zumpt makes the Tiburtine inscription (see below, under Quirinius) refer to Saturninus, he assumes for that officer two separate terms in the governorship of Syria, of which the first embraced the years B.C. 26-23.
[406] Augustus commanded Varro to root out the robber bands of Trachonitis, and at the same time gave the government of the district to Herod. Compare Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 1: Καῖσαρ δὲ ἀνενεχθέντων τούτων ἀντέγραφεν ἐξελεῖν τὰ λῃστήρια, τὴν δὲ χώραν Ἡρώδῃ προσέυειμεν.
M. Agrippa, B.C. 23-13
In B.C. 23 Augustus sent M. Agrippa, his trusted friend and counsellor, who soon after, in B.C. 21, became his son-in-law, to Syria (Dio Cassius, liii. 32). Josephus describes him as “the representative of Caesar in the countries beyond the Ionian Sea” (Antiq. xv. 10. 2: τῶν πέραν Ἰονίου διάδοχος Καίσαρι). He had therefore evidently very extensive powers—more than an ordinary legatus Caesaris. According to Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 3. 3, he held this position (the διοίκησις τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀσίας) for ten years, that is, down to B.C. 13.—Agrippa did not, indeed, go to Syria in B.C. 23, but waited from B.C. 23 to B.C. 21 in Mitylene, on the island of Lesbos, and then returned to Rome (Dio Cassius, liii. 32, liv. 6; Suetonius, Augustus, 66; comp. Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 2; Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 388, 392). Then he was engaged for five years in the West, and did not again go to the East till B.C. 17 or 16, where he remained till B.C. 13 (Dio Cassius, liv. 19, 24, 28; Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 2. 1-3. 3, fin.; Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 402-408). He was therefore by no means during the ten years always even in the East, let alone in Syria. But since, to use the phrase of Mommsen, Agrippa’s position was more that of a collega minor than that of an adjutor (Res gestae, p. 164), he could discharge his official duties in absentia by means of legates, and so indeed he actually did send his legates in B.C. 23 from Lesbos (τοὺς ὑποστρατήγους), Dio Cassius, liii. 32) to Syria. He is therefore during this period, at least during B.C. 23-21 and B.C. 17-13, to be regarded as governor of Syria.[407]
[407] Mommsen (Res gestae, pp. 163-165) regards the statement of Josephus, referred to in the text, as inaccurate to this extent, that Agrippa was clothed with a sort of regency for the whole kingdom, for the West no less than for the East. Yet even Mommsen admits that Agrippa exercised this office of regency at the bidding of the emperor and in the place of imperial legates, sometimes in the East, sometimes in the West. So far the statement of Josephus is not wholly unjustifiable (aliquatenus excusatur).
During the period B.C. 21-19 occurred the two years’ visit of Augustus to the East (Dio Cassius, liv. 7-10; Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 392-396. Comp. Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4).
M. Titius, About B.C. 10
About the time when Herod made his third journey to Rome (probably in B.C. 10; see below at § 15, the Chronology of Herod), M. Titius was appointed governor of Syria (Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 8. 6). He was consul in B.C. 31.—Nothing more definite can be said about the date of his administration. Compare regarding him, Strabo, xvi. 1. 28, p. 748; Mommsen, Res gestae div. Aug. p. 166; Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. vi. 2. 2011 f.
C. Sentius Saturninus, B.C. 9-6
Titius was succeeded by Sentius Saturninus (Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 9. 1), who had held the office of consul in B.C. 19. Josephus names alongside of him also Volumnius as Καίσαρος ἡγεμών. But Volumnius must certainly have been subordinate to Saturninus, since the supreme command in a province was always in one hand. Sentius Saturninus is also referred to in Josephus, Antiq. xvi. 10. 8, 11. 3; xvii. 1. 1, 2. 1, 3. 2.
P. Quinctilius Varus, B.C. 6-4
The immediate successor of Saturninus was Quinctilius Varus (Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 5. 2), consul in B.C. 13, who at a subsequent period undertook the disastrous campaign against Germany. From evidence afforded by the coins (as shown in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. Vet. iii. 275; Mionnet, v. 156), it is proved that Varus was governor of Syria in the, years 25, 26, 27 of the aera Actiaca. The twenty-fifth year of the aera Actiaca, as that era begins with 2nd September B.C. 31, extends from autumn B.C. 7 to autumn B.C. 6. Varus must therefore have gone to Syria at least before autumn B.C. 6; but he remained there till after the death of Herod (Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 9. 3, 10. 1, 10. 9, 11. 1), i.e. till the summer of B.C. 4, or longer. Compare in regard to him also, Mommsen, Res gestae, p. 166.
P. Sulpicius Quirinius, B.C. 3-2 (?)
During the period B.C. 3-2 there is no direct evidence about any governor of Syria. But it may be concluded with a fair amount of probability from a passage in Tacitus, that about this time P. Sulpicius Quirinius, consul in B.C. 12, was appointed governor of Syria. Tacitus in the Annals, iii. 48, expressly records the death of Quirinius in A.D. 21 (coss. Tiber. iv., Drus. ii.), and on that occasion gives the following account of him: Consulatum sub divo Augusto, mox expugnatis per Ciliciam Homonadensium castellis insignia triumphi adeptus, datusque rector Gaio Caesari Armeniam optinenti.[408] Strabo, xii. 6. 5, p. 569, tells the story of the war with the Homonadensians in the following words: Ἐκείνους δὲ (τοὺς Ὁμοναδέας) Κυρίνιος ἐξεπόρθησε λιμῷ καὶ τετρακισχιλίους ἄνδρας ἐζώγρησε καὶ συνῴκισεν εἰς τὰς ἐγγὺς πόλεις, τὴν δὲ χώραν ἀπέλιπεν ἔρημον τῶν ἐν ἀκμῇ. Quirinius therefore had previously conquered the Homonadensians, on account of which the honour of a triumph had been accorded him, and this indeed took place after his consulship in B.C. 12, but before he had been appointed by C. Caesar, his counsellor, on his arrival in Armenia in A.D. 3 (Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, p. 430). But a war could not at any time be carried on except by the governor of that province in which or from which the war was being conducted. Quirinius must therefore have been then governor of that province to which the Homonadensians belonged, or from which the war against them proceeded. Seeing that the Homonadensians occupied the Taurus Mountains, we might have to do with the provinces of Asia, Pamphylia, Galatia, Cilicia, Syria. But of these the first three must be at once set aside, because they had no legions, so that their governors could not carry on a war.[409] And further, Cilicia was probably at that time only a part of the province of Syria (and with this agrees the judgments of Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 95-98; Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 57-61; and Mommsen, Res gestae, p. 172 sq.), at least it was, as also Pamphylia and Galatia were, no consular province, whereas Quirinius led the war against the Homonadensians as one who had been consul. Now, one who had been a consul was never sent to a praetorian province, which was administered by one who had been a praetor. The only conclusion then that remains is that Quirinius at the time of that war with the Homonadensians was governor of Syria.[410] But since this governorship belongs to the period before the year A.D. 3, that is, to the period before he had been appointed counsellor to C. Caesar in Armenia, it cannot be identical with the one of A.D. 6, referred to by Josephus. The only date, therefore, that we can assign to it is the interval between Varus and C. Caesar, that is, B.C. 3-2.[411]
[408] The following words: Tiberium … coluerat, are, according to Mommsen, Res gestae, p. 174 sq., to be connected, not with what goes before, but with what follows.
[409] Compare in reference to Asia, also Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 16. 4 (ed. Bekker, v. 184. 1-2).
[410] In what relation the Homonadensians stood to the Romans before their conquest by Quirinius it is difficult to determine, and for our object it is of no importance. They probably stood even before that time under the suzerainty of the governor of Cilicia resp. Syria, if we may assume that the former was part of the latter. But even if this were not the case, Quirinius carried on the war against it from Syria, and as the governor of Syria.
[411] During the period between Agrippa and Titius, if indeed there was an interval between the two, this war could not have taken place; because, at least as a rule, the imperial provinces also were apportioned a considerable time after the administration of the civic office, in this case the consulship.
It is wholly on this combination, in regard to which Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 90-98; Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 43-62; and Mommsen, Res gestae div. Aug. p. 172 sq., are thoroughly agreed that the assumption of an earlier governorship than that of A.D. 6, referred to by Josephus, is based (for a full statement of Zumpt’s theory, see note in Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 129-135). For the inscription, which some have sought to make use of in this question, cannot prove anything material to the point at issue. It does, indeed, prove that the individual to whom it refers was twice governor of Syria.[412] But whether it is to be applied to Quirinius is open to question, since the name is not given in the inscription. The main ground upon which Mommsen and others have referred it to Quirinius is just that they regard the fact of Quirinius having been twice governor to be proved from other sources, that is, from Tacitus and Josephus. The theory that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria is not therefore to be based upon the inscription, but, on the contrary, the application of the inscription to Quirinius is based upon the proof, elsewhere obtained, that he held the governorship a second time.[413]
[412] Yet even this may be doubted. See Strauss, Die Halben und die Ganzen, p. 75 f. Wieseler, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evv. p. 41 f. Rud. Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie, 1880, pp. 98-114.—The last-named especially seeks to show that the iterum is to be connected only with leg. pr. pr. divi Augusti, and can accordingly only mean that the person referred to, when he became a second time legatus Augusti, was intrusted with the administration of Syria. See in opposition to this, Mommsen, Res gestae, p. 162.
[413] The inscription was found in A.D. 1764 in the neighbourhood of Tibur, and in A.D. 1765 was published for the first time. Sanclemente (De vulgaris aerae emendatione, 1793, pp. 414-426) applied it to Quirinius. He was followed in this by Borghesi, Henzen, Nipperdey, Bergmann, Mommsen, Gerlach. On the other hand, Zumpt (Commentt. epigr. ii. 109-125; Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 72-89) refers it to C. Sentius Saturninus. Zumpt founds his refusal to apply it to Quirinius mainly on the fact that he had been proconsul for Africa (Commentt. epigr. ii. 115 sq.; Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 80-83). Mommsen contests this, and endeavours, on the other hand, to show that Sentius Saturninus was proconsul for Africa (Res gestae div. Aug. pp. 168, 170 sq.). This latter statement would tell decidedly against Saturninus, the former against Quirinius, seeing that one and the same person could never be proconsul for Africa and for Asia (see above, p. 347), the latter of which offices the person referred to in the inscription held. We must therefore still leave the question here raised in suspenso, but give in full the half of the text of the inscription (see the whole of it in Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. xiv. n. 3613), with the words and letters supplied by Mommsen:—
bellum             gessit             cum       gente             homonadensium             quae             interfecerat             amyntam       rEGEM  ∙  QVA  ∙  REDACTA  ∙  IN  ∙  POTestatem       imp. caesaris       AVGVSTI  ∙  POPVLIQVE  ∙  ROMANI  ∙  SENATVs       dis immortalibusSVPPLICATIONESdot;BINAS  ∙  OB  ∙  RES  ∙  PROSPere ab eo gestas et       IPSI        ∙        ORNAMENTA        ∙        TRIVMPHalia       decreuit       PRO  ∙  CONSVL  ∙  ASIAM  ∙  PROVINCIAM  ∙  OPtinuit       legatus pr. pr.DIVI  ∙  AVGVSTI  ∙  iTERVM  ∙  SYRIAM  ∙  ET  ∙  PHoenicen optinuit.
C. Caesar, B.C. 1-A.D. 4 (?)
In the year B.C. 1, that is, A.U.C. 753, Augustus sent his grandson, C. Caesar, son of Agrippa and Julia, now eighteen years of age, to the East, in order to compel the Parthians and Armenians, who refused any longer to recognise the authority of Rome, again to yield submission. Caesar went first of all to Egypt, then, probably, still before the end of the year B.C. 1, to Syria, without, however, entering Palestine (Suetonius, Aug. 93). There he remained probably during the year A.D. 1, and then went onward against the Parthians in A.D. 2, and against the Armenians in A.D. 3. After he had succeeded in putting matters right, Augustus called him back to Rome. But he died on his homeward journey, on 21st February A.D. 4, at Limyra in Lycia (Zonaras, x. 36; Dio Cassius, Leviticus 10 a, where he introduces a quotation from Xiphilinus; Velleius Paterculus, ii. 101-102; Tacitus, Annals, i. 3. The date of the death according to the Cenotaphium Pisanum. Compare, Clinton, ad ann. B.C. 1—A.D. 4. Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 426-431).—According to Zonaras, x. 36, C. Caesar had proconsular authority (τὴν ἐξουσίαν αὐτῷ τὴν ἀνθύπατον ἔδωκεν); according to Orosius, vii. 3, he was sent ad ordinandas Aegypti Syriaeque provincias; according to Suetonius, Tiberius, 12, he was Orienti praepositus. He must therefore have held during this period the administration of Syria. Compare Mommsen, Res gestae, p. 165.
Zumpt, Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 32-40, decidedly opposes this view, because he assumes that, in addition to C. Caesar, ordinary legati Augusti were also then present in the imperial provinces, only that Caesar had the right of independent action, having authority wherever he went superior to the governors of the provinces concerned. Zumpt depends for support to this opinion mainly upon the fact that, if the case were otherwise, Augustus would have renounced all power in the East, which is not to be supposed. But this argument will not by any means stand the test; for then we should have to suppose that, besides Agrippa, ordinary legati Caesaris were also to be found in the provinces, which, however, even Zumpt does not assume. In favour of Mommsen’s theory (which had previously been for the most part set forth by Baronius in his Annals, and by Schöpflin) is to some extent the circumstance that no legati Augusti of that period are known to us, although, considering the scantiness of our information, this cannot be regarded as by any means conclusive; and also, and much more decidedly, the testimony of Orosius, vii. 3, that C. Caesar had been sent ad ordinandas Aegypti Syriaeque provinoias. One cannot see why Augustus should have assigned to him the ordering of the affairs of Egypt and Syria, if there had been already at that very time imperial legates in those provinces.[414]
[414] Under Germanicus (see under date A.D. 17-19) such a state of matters did indeed find place. But this cannot be regarded as a parallel case, because the jealous, suspicious Tiberius sought to paralyze the power of Germanicus by his legates, whereas Augustus had no such reason for acting so.
Apart from these points, the positive conjectures of Zumpt about the legates of Syria during that period are extremely hazardous. He assumes that the counsellors (rectores) appointed for the youthful Caesar were always at the same time governors of Syria. Such rectores were, according to Zumpt, first of all P. Sulpicius Quirinius (Tacitus, Annals, iii. 48); after him, M. Lollius (Suetonius, Tiberius, 12); and last of all, C. Marcius Censorinus (Velleius Paterculus, ii. 102). Compare Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 98-104, 107 sq.; Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 40-43, 62-71.—But Quirinius was counsellor of Caesar certainly not before, but after Lollius, viz. in A.D. 3, when Caesar was already in Armenia (Tacitus, Annals, iii. 48: datusque rector Gaio Caesari Armenian optinenti), Lollius having meanwhile died during the Parthian campaign in A.D. 2 (Velleius Paterculus, ii. 102). Compare Mommsen, Res gestae, pp. 173-175. On the chronology, Fischer, Röm. Zeittafeln, pp. 428-430.—It is particularly. questionable whether Censorinus ought to be reckoned among those rectores at all. He is at least never expressly named as such.[415]—And, finally, the hypothesis is utterly without support, that these rectores were at the same time governors of Syria.
[415] The whole passage in Velleius Paterculus, ii. 102, runs as follows: “Quo tempore M. Lolli, quem veluti moderatorem juventae fili sui Augustus esse voluerat, perfida et plena subdoli ac versuti animi consilia, per Parthum indicata Caesari, fama volgavit. Cujua mors intra paucos dies fortuita an voluntaria fuerit ignoro. Sed quam hunc decessisse laetati homines, tam paulo post obisse Censorinum in iisdem provinciis graviter tulit civitas, virum demerendis hominibus genitum.”—The words “in iisdem provinciis” are certainly in favour of the suppositions that Censorinus had the same office as Lollius.
L. Volusius Saturninus, A.D. 4-5
Consul suffectus in B.C. 12.—From a coin we know that he was governor of Syria in the year 35 of the Actian era, which corresponds to autumn 757-758 A.U.C., or A.D. 4-5 (Eckhel. Doctr. Num. iii. 275 sq.; Mionnet, v. 156).
P. Sulpicius Quirinius, A.D. 6 ff
After the banishment of Archelaus, ethnarch of Judea, in A.D. 6, P. Sulpicius Quirinius went to Syria, and immediately on his arrival took the census in Judea (Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 5; xviii. 1. 1, 2. 1). How long he continued governor of Syria cannot be determined.—Reference is made to his operations in Syria in an inscription which was long regarded as ungenuine, but has now been proved to be undoubtedly genuine by the discovery of the second half of it in the original (see especially, Mommsen, Ephemeris epigraphica, vol. iv. 1881, pp. 537-542; also, Lecoultre, De censu Quiriniano, Lausannae 1883, pp. 48-51; a facsimile of the restored piece in De Rossi, Bullettino di archeologia cristiana, 1880, tav. ix., comp. p. 174).—On the inscription one Q. Aemilius Q. or Pal. Secundus says of himself among other things: jussu Quirini censum egi Apamenae civitatis millium homin(um) civium CXVII. Idem missu Quirini adversus Ituraeos in Libano monte castellum eorum cepi.
Q. Caecilius Creticus Silanus, A.D. 11-17
Consul in A.D. 7.—That he went to Syria as governor at the latest in A.D. 11, is proved by a coin of the year 41 of the Actian era, that is, autumn 763-764 A.U.C., or A.D. 10-11 (so Sanclemente, p. 348). Other coins for the years 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 of the Actian era were given by Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 276; Mionnet, v. 156-159. The latest of these coins, that of the year 47 of the Actian era, belongs to A.D. 16-17. In accordance with this, Tacitus, Annals, ii. 43, records the recall of Silanus by Tiberius in A.D. 17.—Compare also, Tacitus, Annals, ii. 4; Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2. 4; Mommsen, Res gestae, p. 166.
2. Tiberius, 19th Aug. A.D. 14-16th March A.D. 37
Cn. Calpurnius Piso, A.D. 17-19
In the year A.D. 17, probably toward the end of the year, Tiberius sent his nephew and adopted son Germanicus to the East that he might look to the settlement of various matters. He obtained higher powers than the governors of the provinces to which he went (decreto patrum permissae Germanico provinciae quae mari dividuntur, majusque imperium, quoquo adisset, quam iis qui sorte aut missu principis obtinerent. Tacitus, Annals, ii. 43). At the same time Silanus was recalled, and in his place Cn. Calpurnius Piso, consul in the year B.C. 7, was appointed governor of Syria, a man of a violent and unbending character (ingenio violentus et obsequii ignarus, Tacitus, Annals, ii. 43).
Germanicus went first of all to Greece, where in the beginning of the year A.D. 18 he entered on his second consulship. He then passed over to Byzantium and then to Troy, and proceeded west along the Ionian coast to Rhodes, and from thence to Armenia. After he had put matters there to rights, he went to Syria, where Piso had already arrived before him (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 53-57).[416] Owing to the violent character of Piso, hostilities between them could not long be avoided. Yet these outbursts had at first no ulterior consequences (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 57-58). In the year A.D. 19 Germanicus undertook a journey to Egypt, chiefly to inquire into the antiquities of that country (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 59-61). Soon after he returned to Syria he fell sick, and died on 9th Oct. A.D. 19. Common report charged his death upon Piso (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 69-73; Clinton, Fasti Romani, i. p. 4). Even before the death of Germanicus occurred, Piso had quitted Syria, having been commanded by Germanicus to leave the province (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 70).
[416] Yet Piso cannot have reached Syria before the year A.D. 18, since he bad met with Germanicus on his outward journey at Rhodes (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 55).
Cn. Sentius Saturninus, A.D. 19-21
After the death of Germanicus his generals transferred the supreme command to Cu. Sentius Saturninus, consul in A.D. 4 (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 74). But Piso, on his return voyage, obtained in the neighbourhood of the island of Cos the intelligence of the death of Germanicus, and now resolved to take violent possession of Syria. He landed in Cilicia, gained possession of the stronghold of Celenderis (Κελένδερις, Strabo, pp. 670, 760; compare Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 5. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 31. 3), but was obliged there, on surrendering to Sentius, to agree to the condition that he should return to Rome (Tacitus, Annals, ii. 75-81).—He reached Rome in the beginning of the year A.D. 20, was there accused by the friends of Germanicus, but avoided condemnation by committing suicide (Tacitus, Annals, iii. 8-15.)
How long Sentius Saturninus remained in Syria is not known. He is referred to as legatus Caesaris in an inscription found at Nicopolis, on the borders of Syria and Cilicia, on the Gulf of Issus, which at the earliest belongs to the year A.D. 21, Tiber. iv. cos. (Ephemeris epigraph. vol. v. 1884, p. 573, n. 1336). According to this inscription, it would seem that he had been also formally appointed governor of Syria; for it is in this sense probably that the title legatus Caesaris is to be understood (see Mommsen’s remarks as above).
L. Aelius Lamia, Down to A.D. 32
From the Annals of Tacitus, i. 80; Suetonius, Tiberius, 41, 63, we know that Tiberius repeatedly appointed legates without actually allowing them to go to their provinces (Tacitus: qua haesitatione postremo eo provectus est, ut mandaverit quibusdam provincias, quos egredi urbe non erat passurus). By this measure L. Aelius Lamia among others was affected. Tacitus, in his Annals, vi. 27, has given the following particular account of his death: Extremo anni (A.D. 33) mors Aelii Lamiae funere censorio celebrata, qui administrandae Suriae imagine tandem exsolutus urbi praefuerat. Genus illi decorum, vivida senectus; et non permissa provincia dignationem addiderat. We see from this that Aelius Lamia, immediately after he had been released from the imago administrandae Suriae, i.e. from the nominal, not actual, administration of Syria, was appointed praefectus urbi. He did not, however, hold the office of praefectus urbi until after the death of L. Piso, see Dio Cassius, lviii. 19: τόν τε Πίσωνα τὸν πολίαρχον τελευτήσαντα δημοσίᾳ ταφῇ ἐτίμησεν, ὅπερ που καὶ ἄλλοις ἐχαρίζετο· καὶ Λούκιον ἀντʼ αὐτοῦ Λαμίαν ἀνθείλετο, ὃν πρόπαλαι τῇ Συρίᾳ[417] προστάξας κατεῖχεν ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ. Seeing then that Piso, according to Tacitus, Annals, vi. 10, and Dio Cassius, lviii. 19, died in A.D. 32, Aelius Lamia must have been appointed praefectus urbi in that year, and was therefore up to that date, at least in name, governor of Syria (Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 131 sq.; Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 184, 265).—Josephus, in his Antiq. xviii. 6. 2-3, seems indeed to contradict this view. He makes the statement that Agrippa I., before he became king of Judea, once paid a visit to Pomponius Flaccus, governor of Syria, and successor of Aelius Lamia (see below), and that then, after many adventures by the way, he returned to Rome, and there, after he had been for some time resident in Rome, charged his freedman Eutychus with theft, and had him brought up before Piso as praefectus urbi (Antiq. xviii. 6, 5). It seems therefore at first sight necessary to assume that Flaccus some time before the death of Piso had been made governor of Syria, for apparently Lamia could not have held the office down to that date. But, in truth, on closer examination of the facts this argumentation[418] will not be found convincing. That particular Piso before whom Eutychus was brought (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 5) cannot possibly have been the Piso who died in A.D. 32, since the occurrence referred to took place, as will be shown farther on, under the history of Agrippa, in § 18, in the year A.D. 36.[419] We have here then to do with another Piso, who at a later period, A.D. 36-37, held the office of praefectus urbi,[420] so that mention of him contributes nothing to the solution of the question when Flaccus succeeded Lamia.—We must accordingly confine ourselves wholly to the statements of Tacitus, which represent Lamia as occupying his nominal office of governor of Syria up to the date of his entrance upon his civic prefecture, i.e. up to A.D. 32.[421] When the governorship was conferred upon him we cannot determine. He had held it certainly for a long time, as is evident from the “tandem” of Tacitus and the “πρόπαλαι” of Dio Cassius.[422]
[417] So Dindorf reads instead of στρατιᾶ.
[418] It has been urged mainly by Wieseler in his controversy against Keim’s chronology of the life of Jesus. See Wieseler, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evv., sec. 8, Anm.; Beweis des Glaubens for 1870, April no. p. 170 (there Wieseler assumes that Flaccus “had entered Syria somewhere about A.D. 27”). Theolog. Studien und Kritiken, 1875, pp. 533-535.
[419] In order to support his opinion that the Piso alluded to by Josephus in his Antiq. xviii. 6. 5 was he who died in A.D. 32, Wieseler is obliged to have recourse to very questionable hypotheses. 1. He is obliged to assume that between the apprehension of Eutychus and his trial before Tiberius no less than four years had passed, A.D. 32-36, for undoubtedly the trial did not take place before the autumn of A.D. 36, half a year before the death of Tiberius (Antiq. xviii. 6. 7; Wars of the Jews, ii. 9. 5). Keim in the Protestant. Kirchenzeitung, 1869, No. 51, col. 1218, rightly declares that this is contrary to fact; while Wieseler in the Beweis des Glaubens, 1870, p. 169, firmly stands by his statement. 2. He is obliged, however, to make a violent alteration of the text of Josephus. For this same Piso is immediately thereafter, in Antiq. xviii. 6. 10, once again referred to, and that in connection with the spring of the year A.D. 37, after the death of Tiberius. Wieseler therefore strikes the name out of that passage (Beweis des Glaubens, 1870, p. 168; Beiträge, p. 8 f.). 3. He is also obliged to make a further alteration in the text. For Josephus says expressly, in his Antiq. xviii. 5. 3, that Agrippa had gone to Rome only a year before the death of Tiberius (ἐνιαυτῷ πρότερον ἢ τελευτῆσαι Τιβέριον), i.e. not in A.D. 32, but in A.D. 36. In this case Wieseler by an alteration of the text reads instead of one year several years (Beiträge, p. 13 f.; Beweis des Glaubens, 1870, p. 169). Compare on the other side, Keim, Protestant. Kirchenzeitung, 1869, No. 51, col. 1217. In opposition generally to Wieseler, see also Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu, 2 Aufl. 1874, pp. 84-87.
[420] So also Borghesi, Oeuvres, iii. 325 sq. Mommsen, Index zu Plin. Epist., ed. Keil, p. 405. Henzen, Acta fratrum Arvalium (1874), Index, p. 180 sq.—In regard to others of the name of Piso belonging to that same period, see Mommsen, Ephemeris epigr. i. 143-151, 226 sq.
[421] Gerlach (pp. 49-52) assumes that Flaccus had gone to Syria as early as A.D. 22. He supports his opinion by reference to Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 1-3, and Suetonius, Tiberius, 42. But from the former passage it does not follow, as Gerlach wishes to make out, that the visit of Agrippa to Flaccus was made in A.D. 24, soon after the death of Drusus, who died in A.D. 23; and in the latter passage the confestim is to be connected only with the words: Pisoni praefecturam urbis detulit, whereby the statement loses all its force as a proof passage. The words of Tacitus do not permit us to restrict the period of office of Aelius Lamia to two years, and to postulate between his ceasing to hold the post of governor and his appointment to the office of city prefect a lengthened interval Gerlach himself at a later period abandoned this view (Zeitschrift für luther. Theologie, 1869, p. 48).
[422] From the fact that about A.D. 30 there was actually no governor in Syria, is to be explained the circumstance that no one is named as such in Luke 3:1.
L. Pomponius Flaccus, A.D. 32-35 (?)
Since Lamia withdrew from the office of governor of Syria in A.D. 32, Flaccus, who had been consul in A.D. 17, succeeded him in that year. The death of Flaccus is reported by Tacitus in his Annals, vi. 27, in immediate connection with the above passage about Aelius Lamia in the following words: exim (that is to say, after the death of Aelius Lamia) Flacco Pomponio Suriae pro praetore defuncto recitantur Caesaris literae, quis incusabat egregium quemque et regendis exercitibus idoneum abnuere id munus, seque ea necessitudine ad preces cogi, per quas consularium aliqui capessere provincias adigerentur, oblitus Arruntium, ne in Hispaniam pergeret, decumum jam annum attineri. Since Tacitus, however, mentions this among the events of the year 33, the first suggestion that would occur to the reader is that the death of Flaccus took place during that year. And this is the opinion almost universally entertained. Yet it is not to be regarded as by any means impossible that Tacitus had gathered his facts about Lamia and Flaccus from materials that had been supplied him, and that the death of Flaccus did not occur till a subsequent date.[423] In fact, Keim[424] has raised the supposition to a high degree of probability that Flaccus did not die before A.D. 35. In favour of this view may be alleged:—1. The remark of Tacitus, that then, at the time of Flaccus’ death, Arruntius had been already detained for ten years from going to his province, Spain. By Hispania only Hispania citerior can be intended; for Hispania ulterior was a senatorial province (see Tacitus, Annals, iv. 13). But that province did not become vacant before A.D. 25 (Tacitus, Annals, iv. 45). Accordingly the tenth year of Arruntius must correspond to A.D. 35. 2. Agrippa I. went to Rome in the spring of the year 36 (ἐνιαυτῷ πρότερον ἢ τελευτῆσαι Τιβέριον, Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 3), after having not long before visited Flaccus in Syria (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 2-3). If then, allowing for hindrances and delays that may have occurred, we allow for Agrippa’s journey to Rome after his visit to Flaccus a whole year (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 6. 3-4), it must still be assumed that Flaccus was in Syria in A.D. 35.—Finally, it may further be alleged in favour of taking A.D. 35 as the year of the death of Flaccus, that his successor Vitellius, who certainly went to Syria in A.D. 35, is thus made immediately to follow, whereas in the other case a vacancy must have occurred.
[423] That Tacitus does not in every case follow strictly the chronological order is shown, e.g., in Annals, xii. 23, where the death of King Agrippa I., which occurred in A.D. 44, is mentioned among the occurrences of A.D. 49.
[424] Comp. especially, Protestant. Kirchenzeitung, 1869, No. 51, col. 1216 f.; also Geschichte Jesu, i. 628, iii. 490 f. (Engl. transl. Jesus of Nazara, ii. 396, vi. 231). A similar opinion is also expressed by Liebenam, Forschungen sur Verwaltungsgeschichte des röm. Kaiserreichs, 1 Bd. Die Legaten in den römischen Provinzen (1888), p. 267.
A coin of Flaccus of the year 82 of the aera Caesariana,[425] corresponding to autumn 786-787 A.U.C., or A.D. 33-34, is given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 279; Mionnet, v. 167.—Compare also generally, Suetonius, Tiberius, 42; Pauly’s Real Encyclopaedie, v. 1878 f.; Henzen, Acta fratrum Arvalium (1874), Index, p. 195.
[425] This era begins in autumn 705 A.U.C., eighteen years earlier than the Actian era. Compare Noris, Annus et epochae Syromacedonum, iii. ed. 4, Lips. p. 162 sqq. Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, pp. 224-229. Eckhel, Doctrina Num. iii. 279 ff. Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, i. 460 ff.
L. Vitellius, A.D. 35-39
In A.D. 35 Tiberius sent L. Vitellius, who had been consul in A.D. 34, father of the next emperor, as legate to Syria (Tacitus, Annals, vi. 32).[426] Tacitus bears testimony on his behalf that, in contrast to his subsequent manner of life, he was blameless in his administration of the province (eo de homine haud sum ignarus sinistram in urbe famam, pleraque foeda memorari, ceterum in regendis provinciis prisca virtute egit).—In A.D. 39 he was recalled by Caligula, and Petronius appointed his successor (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 2).[427] Compare also generally, Suetonius, Vitellius, 2; Dio Cassius, lix. 27; Pliny, Hist. Nat. xv. 83; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2. 2682 f.; Liebenam, Forschungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte des römischen Kaiserreichs, 1 Bd. p. 373.
[426] From the words of Tacitus, “cunctis quae apud orientum parabantur L. Vitellium praefecit,” it may perhaps be assumed that Vitellius had held under his authority a wider region than the province of Syria. Yet even Tacitus himself in the Annals, vi. 41, names him “praeses Suriae;” as does also Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 4. 2: Συρίας τίν ἡγεμονίαν ἔχων. So, too, Suetonius, Vitellius, 2; Dio Cassius, lxix. 27; Pliny, Hist. Nat. xv. 83. He was therefore certainly governor of Syria, but had perhaps over and above this a more extensive authority.
[427] From what Josephus says, it would appear as if the recall of Vitellius and the arrival of Petronius did not occur till the autumn of A.D. 40. Petronius after his arrival went into winter quarters at Ptolemais (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 2). The negotiations begun straightway with the Jews took place during seed-time (Antiq. xviii. 8. 3, 8. 6), i.e. in November or December; see Winer, Realwörterbuch, ii. 342. In regard to these matters Petronius wrote to Caligula, who received the letter shortly before his death, which took place on 24th January A.D. 41, and answered it (Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 8-9: καὶ τελευτᾷ μὲν οὐ μετὰ πολὺν χρόνον ἢ γράψαι τῷ Πετρωνίῳ τὴν—ἐπιστολήν). Josephus seems therefore to set the arrival of Petronius in the autumn of A.D. 40. According to the most decided testimony of Philo, on the other hand (Legat. ad Cajum, § 33, ed. Mangey, ii. 583), Petronius was already in harvest time in Palestine, that is, in April (see Winer, Realwörterbuch, i. 340), and at the head of troops which he had had time to bring across the Euphrates (Legat. ad Cajum, § 31, ed. Mangey, ii. 576). He must therefore certainly have reached Syria in A.D. 39. So also Liebenam, Forschungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte des römischen Kaiserreichs, 1 Bd. Die Legaten in den römischen Provinzen (1888), p. 374.
3. Caligula, 16th March A.D. 37-24th January A.D. 41
P. Petronius, A.D. 39-42
Petronius had been sent by Caligula into Syria in A.D. 39. We know from a coin (given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 280; Mionnet, v. 167) that he was still governor in the year 90 of the aera Caesariana, corresponding to autumn 794-795 A.U.C., or A.D. 41-42; therefore for somewhere about a year after the beginning of the reign of Claudius.—Compare in regard to him Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 8. 2-9; xix. 6. 3; Philo, Legat. ad Cajum, § 31-34, ed. Mangey, ii. 576-584; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, v. 1402.
4. Claudius, 24th January A.D. 41-13th October A.D. 54
C. Vibius Marsus, A.D. 42-44
As successor of Petronius, Claudius sent C. Vibius Marsus, Consul suffectus in A.D. 17, into Syria (Josephus, Antiq. xix. 6. 4). He had occasion repeatedly to protect Roman interests against King Agrippa (Josephus, Antiq. xix. 7. 2, 8. 1). His recall took place soon after the death of Agrippa in A.D. 44, therefore towards the end of A.D. 44 or in the beginning of A.D. 45 (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 1).—Compare also Tacitus, Annals, xi. 10. This passage does not prove that Marsus was still governor of Syria in A.D. 47; for Tacitus there, under the history of the year 47, recapitulates earlier occurrences in the history of Parthia. See Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 137; Gerlach, p. 67. Compare generally, Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vi. 2. 2571.
C. Cassius Longinus, A.D. 45-50
Marsus was succeeded by C. Cassius Longinus, Consul suffectus in A.D. 30 (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 1). He was celebrated in his day as a jurist (ceteros praeminebat peritia legum, Tacitus, Annals, xii. 12), yea, as the founder of a special school of jurisprudence (Cassianae scholae princeps et parens, Pliny, Epist. vii 24. 8). Coins with his name belonging to the years 94 and 96 of the aera Caesariana, corresponding to A.D. 45-46 and 47-48, are given by Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 280; Mionnet, v. 167. Tacitus speaks of him as governor of Syria as late as A.D. 49 (Annals, xii. 11-12). Not long afterwards he seems to have been recalled by Claudius. In regard to his subsequent fortunes, see Tacitus, Annals, xvi. 7 and 9; Suetonius, Nero, 37. Generally, Digest. i. 2. 2. 51; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, ii. 201; Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, i. 169 f.; Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 298. 3; Mommsen, Index to Pliny’s Epistles, ed. Keil, p. 406; Liebenam, Forschungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte, 1 Bd. p. 375 f.
C. Ummidius Quadratus, A.D. 50-60
In A.D. 51, C. Ummidius Quadratus is spoken of by Tacitus, Annals, xii. 45, as governor of Syria. It may therefore be assumed with Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 138, that he went there in A.D. 50. Coins bearing his name belonging to the years 104-108 of the aera Caesariana, corresponding to A.D. 55/56-59/60, are given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 280; Mionnet, v. 159. He died while governor of Syria in A.D. 60 (Tacitus, Annals, xiv. 26).[428]—His public career (he had been quaestor as early as A.D. 14) is sketched in the inscriptions: Orelli, Inscr. Lat. n. 3128=Inscr. Regni Neapol. n. 4234=Corp. Inscr. Lat. x. n. 5182. His full name, C. Ummidius Durmius Quadratus, is also given on a brazen tablet which contains the oath of the inhabitants of Aritium in Lusitania upon Caligula’s assuming the reins of government (Orelli, n. 3665=Corp. Inscr. Lat. ii. n. 172=Ephemeris epigr. v. p. 155).—Compare also with reference to him, Tacitus, Annals, xii 54, xiii. 8-9; Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 2; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, v. 743; Nipperdey on Tacitus, Annals, xii. 45.
[428] Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 138, gives the date as A.D. 61. But what is recorded in Tacitus, Annals, xiv. 20-28, took place in A.D. 60, coss. Nero IV. Cornelius Cossus.
5. Nero, 13th October A.D. 54-9th June A.D. 68
Cn. Domitius Corbulo, A.D. 60-63
After the death of Ummidius Quadratus in A.D. 60, Domitius Corbulo went to Syria as governor (Tacitus, Annals, xiv. 26). On his doings in that capacity, see Tacitus, Annals, xv. 1-17; Dio Cassius, lxii. 19 ff. He held the position of governor till A.D. 63, in which year a higher office was given him, while another governor was sent to Syria; Tacitus, Annals, xv. 25: Suriae exsecutio Citio (?), copiae militares Corbuloni permissae et quinta decuma legio ducente Mario Celso e Pannonia adjecta est. Scribitur tetrarchis ac regibus praefectisque et procuratoribus et qui praetorum finitimas provincias regebant, jussis Corbulonis obsequi, in tantum ferme modum aucta potestate, quem populus Romanus Cn. Pompeio bellum piraticum gesturo dederat. The name of the individual who obtained the province cannot be determined with certainty. The best manuscript has Citius. The editors make various conjectures: Cincius, C. Itius, Cestius. Most might be said in favour of Cestius, for we certainly meet with him as governor of Syria in A.D. 65 (so, e.g., Zumpt, Commentt. epigr. ii. 141).—In regard to Corbulo’s death in A.D. 67, see Dio Cassius, lxiii. 17. An inscription of A.D. 64 has been found in Armenia, on which he is called leg. Aug. pro pr. (see Ephemeris epigr. v. p. 25). Generally, Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, ii. 1218 f.; Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 291. 3, and the monographs there quoted from of Held (1862) and Wolffgramm (1874). Liebenam, Forschungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte, 1 Bd. p. 169 f. For an estimate and characterization of Corbulo, see also Gutschmid, Geschichte Irans und seiner Nachbarländer (1888), p. 131, Anm.
C. Cestius Gallus, A.D. 63-66
If the conjecture given above is correct, Cestius Gallus went to Syria as early as A.D. 63. He was there undoubtedly in A.D. 65, for he went up to Jerusalem at the Passover of A.D. 66, in the twelfth year of Nero=October A.D. 65-A.D. 66 (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 11. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 4), after having been already for a long time in Syria (Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 3). Coins with his name of the years 114 and 115 of the aera Caesariana=A.D. 65/66-66/67, are given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 281 sq.; Mionnet, v. 169; Supplem. viii. 131.—During his governorship in May A.D. 66, the month Artemisios (Wars of the Jews, ii. 14. 4), the Jewish war broke out of which Cestius Gallus lived only to see the opening campaign. For he died in the winter of A.D. 66-67 “by accident or through fatigue” (fato aut taedio occidit, Tacitus, History, v. 10).[429]
[429] Cestius Gallus was still in Syria in the winter of A.D. 66-67 (Josephus, Life, 8, 43, 65, 67, 71). But before the beginning of the spring the management of the war had been committed to Vespasian (Wars of the Jews, iii. 4. 2).
C. Licinius Mucianus, A.D. 67-69
When Palestine was separated from Syria and transferred to Vespasian as a distinct province, Syria was assigned to Licinius Mucianus.[430] Josephus speaks of him in A.D. 67 when referring to the siege of Gamala (Wars of the Jews, iv. 1. 5), and in A.D. 69 when referring to the election of Vespasian as emperor (Wars of the Jews, iv. 10. 5-6). Compare also, Tacitus, History, i. 10; Josephus, Antiq. xii. 3. 1. Coins with his name of the time of Galba (9th June A.D. 68-15th January A.D. 69) and of Otho (15th January-16th April A.D. 69)[431] are given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 282; Mionuet, v. 169; Suppl. viii. 131.—In the autumn of A.D. 69, in order to oppose Vitellius, he brought an army from Syria to Rome (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 11. 1; Tacitus, History, ii. 82 sq.; Suetonius, Vespasian, 6; Dio Cassius, lxv. 9), where he did not, however, arrive until after the death of Vitellius, which occurred on 20th December A.D. 69. He had then for a long time the supreme power in his hands (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 11. 4; Tacitus, History, iv. 11, 39, 49, 80; Dio Cassius, lxv. 22, lxvi. 2).—Compare in regard to him also, Borghesi, Oeuvres, iv. 345-353; Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iv. 1069 f.; L. Brunn, De C. Licinio Muciano, Lips. 1870; Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, § 314. 1; Henzen, Acta fratrum Arvalium, Index, p. 190 sq.; Liebenam, Forschungen zur Verwaltungsgeschichte, i. 257 f.
[430] On the severance of Palestine from Syria, see Kuhn, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des römischen Reichs, ii. 179 f., 183-189; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 419.—Tacitus, History, i. 10: Suriam et quattuor legiones obtinebat Licinius Mucianus … bellum Judaeicum Flavius Vespasianus (ducem eum Nero delegerat) tribus legionibus administrabat. Tacitus, History, ii. 5: Ceterum hic Suriae, ille Judaeae praepositus, vicinis provinciarum administrationibus invidia discordes, exitu demum Neronis positis odiis in medium consuluere. Also Aurelius Victor, De Caesarib. c. 9, epit. c. 9, ascribes the establishment or erection of the province of Palestine to Vespasian.—In opposition to this, Pick in Sallet’s Zeitschrift für Numismatik, Bd. xiii. 1885, pp. 197-200, expresses the opinion that Vespasian did not hold Palestine as a separate province; his office is rather to be regarded as that of “a legatus Augusti pro praetore of a higher rank without a special province, who, intrusted with the conduct of a war, occupies a position superior to the ordinary governors.” But this view is not reconcilable with the precise words of Tacitus.
[431] Both coins bear the date of the year 117 of the aera Caesariana, and just for this reason afford sure grounds for determining the reckoning of the era.
The later governors of Syria do not come within the range of our investigation, since from this time forth Palestine continued to be a separate province from. Syria. For the governors of Palestine from the time of Vespasian to Hadrian, see § 21.