Part One:
Contemporaneity
Contemporaneity
by
Damien F. Mackey
“… the rehabilitated
Herod is considerably more Roman than his older counterpart. In the new
portrait of Herod, he faces west toward Rome and Augustus rather than east
toward the Hellenistic kingdoms, and he is described as “a friend of the Romans”
rather than as “an Arab monarch”.”
Byron McCane
Some
Parallelism
The dates and lengths of reign conventionally
assigned to the succession of early Herodians: Herod
the Great, Herod Antipas, and
Herod Agrippa I, run strikingly parallel to those of the early
Julio-Claudian emperors: Augustus,
Tiberius, and Caligula.
Thus we find - and we must make allowance (by at least a handful of years) for
the famous chronological uncertainties associated with Herod the Great:
Julio-Claudian
emperors
|
Herodians
|
Augustus 27 BC - AD 14
|
Herod the Great 37 - 4 BC
|
Tiberius 14 - 37 AD
|
Herod Antipas 4 BC - AD 39
|
Caligula 37 - 41 AD
|
Herod Agrippa I 37 - 44 AD
|
Moreover, the lineage of Herod was typically
Roman-educated (see e.g. Herod and
Augustus: Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st-23rd June 2005, p.
372, edited by David M.
Jacobson, Nikos Kokkinos).
And the ‘Roman-facing’ Herod the
Great, according to Byron McCane’s re-evaluation of this most significant of
ancient kings (“Simply Irresistible: Augustus, Herod, and the Empire”, JBL: https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-1625441681/simply-irresistible-augustus-hero), has frequently been compared
with the emperor Augustus. See e.g.: http://portal.lvc.edu/vhr/articles/2015-Bonar%20J%20&%20H%20Journal%20EDITED.pdf
Herod Antipas grew up in an unusual household
where you didn't know if your father was going to provide you with love or
instant death. Herod the
Great was perhaps one of
those people who wasn't really suited to be a dad. A homicidal monarch yes - a
father no. Perhaps it isn't surprising that in his own later life Herod Antipas
had no interest in starting his own family, perhaps he feared he would kill his
own children or keep an ex-wife in jars of shredded marmalade. It was a wise
choice … [,]
well, he was something like Tiberius insofar as (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=i18-QVydZp4C&pg=PA870&lpg=PA870&dq=tibe): “…
sufficient factual evidence remains to show that Tiberius was an eccentric, misunderstood, and unloved person”.
And again (http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/augustus.html):
After the death of Livia,
however, Tiberius, with the encouragement of Sejanus, systematically persecuted
this family. Accusing them of plotting to assassinate him, Tiberius banished
Agrippina the Elder and her oldest son, Nero; her second son, Drusus, was
imprisoned a year later along with Asinius Gallus, who had earlier asked to
marry Agrippina. Within four years these prisoners were all dead, mostly
through starvation.
As for Herod Agrippa (there are considered to have been I and a II), we read of “Agrippa II” in The
Jerome Biblical Commentary (1968) of this very Caligula-like state of
affairs (75: 153): “[Agrippa’s] relations with his sister Bernice (probably
incestuous) caused scandal in Rome (Ant. 20.
7. 3 § 145 …)”. Agrippa I is even supposed to have sojourned with Caligula in
Rome (http://www.livius.org/articles/person/herod-agrippa-i/): “Agrippa stayed in Rome. The
relation between the Jewish king and the Roman emperor was excellent, which is
remarkable, because many considered Caligula a madman, and he could be very
cruel indeed”.
And, like Caligula, Agrippa ‘turned
into a god’.
Compare: “Caligula announces he will be a god when he is dead. ... Caligula
becomes obsessed with attaining the status of a god
…”. (Hawes, Wm., Caligula and the
Fight for Artistic Freedom),
with Acts 12:21-23:
On the
appointed day Herod [Agrippa], wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and
delivered a public address to the people. They shouted,
‘This is the voice of a god, not of a man’. Immediately, because Herod did not
give praise to God an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by
worms and died.
Part Two:
Parallel Career Patterns
Tripartite Reign
According to The Jerome Biblical Commentary
(75:130): “Herod’s
reign falls into three parts”.
Let us consider these three phases
in turn, and compare them with the reign of Augustus.
- Herod’s Early Years 37-25 BC
(75:131):
These early years were used mainly to consolidate his
powers, and were marked by the cold-blooded, systematic elimination of any who
might contest his authority.
…. His cruelty, rooted in insatiable ambition, was notorious,
yet he was surrounded by intrigue and conspiracy that made him fight for his
very existence.
[End of quote]
The same single-minded pursuit of power and use of
force, during a tumultuous phase of history (at least, so-called), is apparent
in the early years of the career of Caesar Augustus (http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/emperor-augustus):
As the first Roman emperor
(though he never claimed the title for himself), Augustus led Rome’s
transformation from republic to empire during the tumultuous years following
the assassination of his great-uncle and adoptive father Julius Caesar. He
shrewdly combined military might, institution-building and lawmaking to become
Rome’s sole ruler ….
[End of quote]
Likewise, Octavius is “cold and calculating” according
to (https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/a/antony-and-cleopatra/character-analysis/octavius-caesar):
As one of the three triumvirs, Octavius is the youngest and the most
ambitious of the three.
…. Nothing exists for young Caesar except the single goal of acquiring and
maintaining power. …. Because of the limited range of Octavius's vision and
interests, he often appears cold and calculating, and many of his actions are
indeed calculated ones. In betrothing his beloved sister to Antony, his
long-time rival, he shows that he is capable of placing political expediency
above family loyalty. Conversely, when Antony abandons Octavia, Octavius acts
like the outraged brother who wishes to avenge his sister's honor. While his
pride is understandably piqued, his anger also hints of opportunism, for here
is the perfect pretext for attacking his rival.
Octavius struggles for supremacy within the Triumvirate ….
Octavius has few devoted friends … the lot of the ruler who must sacrifice
everything to stay in power. He trusts no one, and he fears to let himself be
close to few, if any, of his men. His treatment of Lepidus is one example of
how he can cast aside presumed friends in order to achieve even more power.
….
Octavius, at times, seems almost without
principle. …. Basically, then, we can say that Octavius symbolizes the world of
power, politics, and war. ….
[End of quote]
- Herod’s Cultural Phase 25-13 BC
The Jerome Biblical Commentary
(75:132):
Once opposition to his power had
been removed, Herod embarked on a period of lavish and munificent cultural improvements
in his realm, financed mainly by taxes … emperor-temples, theaters, hippodromes,
gymnasia, baths, and even new cities.
…. In all of this Herod was
influenced by the cultural advances of the Augustan age, for he had surrounded himself
with Greek philosophers and rhetors as advisers. … [e.g.] Nicolas of Damascus ….
[End of quote]
Augustus was likewise single-minded about taxation (http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/emperor-augustus):
During his 40-years
reign, Augustus nearly doubled the size of the empire, adding territories in
Europe and Asia Minor and securing alliances that gave him effective rule from
Britain to India. He spent much of his time outside of Rome, consolidating
power in the provinces and instituting a system of censuses and taxation that
integrated the empire’s furthest reaches. He expanded the Roman network of roads,
founded the Praetorian Guard and the Roman postal service and remade Rome with
both grand (a new forum) and practical gestures (police and fire departments).
And Augustus, like Herod,
built on an impressive scale: temples, theatres, roads, aqueducts (https://brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute//courses/romanartandarch2011/14123.html
Augustus’ campaign to
rejuvenate Rome largely hinged on his uncanny ability to inextricably link the
city’s aesthetic splendor to its imperial splendor. The strong connection
Augustus fostered between visual and moral strength encouraged the city’s wealthy
men to invest in the capital’s built environment; the Temple of Hercules and
the Muses, the Temple of Diana, the Atrium of Liberty, the Temple of Saturn,
and the amphitheater of Statilius Taurus are all massive projects funded
exclusively by Rome’s elite (Suetonius 60). These endeavors were viewed, even
in their own age, as tangible markers of Rome’s ascension to cultural
prominence and the re-solidification of the Empire’s standards following the
late Republic’s seemingly all-encompassing decrepitude. In his Res Gestae
Augustus takes care to highlight the marble magnificence of his Rome; “I built
the Senate-house…and the temple of Apollo on the Palatine with portocos…I
rebuilt the Capitol and the theater of Pompey…I rebuilt aqueducts in many
places that had decayed with age… I completed the Forum of Julius…I built the
temple of Mars Ultor…I rebuilt the Flaminian road…,” (Res Gestae) ….
[End of quote]
“His
reported last words … to his subjects he
said, “I found Rome of clay; I leave it to you of marble …”.” (http://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/emperor-augustus)
Some Greek
influence on Augustus: “During his childhood Octavian was educated in Greek philosophy
in Athens” (http://www.conservapedia.com/Augustus_Caesar).
The clear Greek inspiration in style and symbol for
official sculptural portraits, which under the Roman emperors became
instruments of governmental propaganda, is a central part of the Augustan
ideological campaign, a shift from the Roman Republican era iconography where
old and wise features were seen as symbols of solemn character. Therefore, the
Prima Porta statue marks a conscious reversal of iconography to the Greek
classical and Hellenistic period, in which youth and strength were valued as
signs of leadership, emulating heroes and culminating in Alexander the Great
himself. Such a statue's political function was very obvious—to show Rome that
the emperor Augustus was an exceptional figure, comparable to the heroes worthy
of being raised to divine status on Olympus, and the best man to govern Rome.
- Herod’s Domestic Strife Last Phase 13-4 BC
The Jerome Biblical Commentary
(75:133): “It
was domestic strife that marked the last years of Herod’s reign”.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Augustus_Caesar
Augustus: Family and Succession
Augustus married three times,
although his first union, to Mark Antony’s stepdaughter Clodia Pulchra, was
unconsummated. His second wife, Scribonia, bore his only child, Julia the
Elder. He divorced in 39 B.C. to marry Livia Drusilla, who had two
sons—Tiberius and Drusus—by her first husband, Mark Antony’s ally Tiberius
Claudius Nero. The
family tree became more complicated after Augustus had his stepson Tiberius
briefly marry his daughter, and then adopted Tiberius outright as son and
successor in A.D. 4.
[End of quote]
Herod, Augustus, reigned for about four decades.
The tripartite pattern of reign set out above is
probably fairly typical for great and long-reigning monarchs, with an initial
phase of single-minded quest for supreme power accompanied by cruelty and
bloodshed; then a peaceful and prosperous phase enabling for grandiose
projects; with a final decline towards the end, due to age and possible disputes
over succession.
No comments:
Post a Comment