The reconstitution by Augustus appeared to the men of his day as the inauguration2 of an epoch3. Poets hailed the dawn of a new day, and unqualifiedly saluted5 its great figure as a living god.[275] But we shall receive a false impression of the time and its condition, if we assume it to resemble an empire of modern type.
The Roman empire as founded by Augustus was simply the expression of the fact that between the Euphrates and the Ocean, between the Danube and the great African Desert, all the various forms of constituted authority were subject to revision by the will of the Roman people, i.e. those who actually lived, or had 258an indefeasible right to live, within the walls of the Roman city. The populus Romanus had chosen to delegate functions of great extent and importance to a single man, to Augustus; but the power wielded6 by Augustus was not in any sense the power of an unrestrained master, nor was the rule of the Roman people the actual and direct government of the nations subject to it.
It would be quite impossible to enumerate7 the various communities which, under Augustus, as they had before, maintained their customs as the unbroken tradition of many centuries. In the mountains of Asia Minor8 it is likely that such a people as the Carduchi, whom Xenophon encountered there, were still under Augustus determining their mutual9 rights and obligations by rules that were either the same as those of Xenophon’s time or directly derived10 from those rules.[276] So the cartouches on the Egyptian monuments might have been read by the clerks of Amen-hem-et, and would have excited no queries11 from them. The communities of the Mediterranean12 enforced their law—that is, the rules which constrained13 the individual member to respect the claims of his fellows—without noticeable break. The difference was that there was a limit to which it might be enforced, and that limit was set by the caprice of another and a paramount14 people.
Although the sovereignty of the Roman people was limitless, it was not, as a matter of fact, capriciously exercised. During the republic the theory of provincial16 organization had been somewhat of the following 259nature. Within any given territory contained in the limits of the province, there existed a certain number of individual civic17 units, which might take the form of city-states, territorial18 states of varying extent, leagues of communities, kingdoms, tetrarchies, or hieratic religious communes. Any or all of these might be gathered within a single province, a word which is essentially19 abstract, and denoted a magisterial21 function rather than a territory. Into the midst of these civitates, this jumble22 of conflicting civic interests, there was sent a representative of the sovereign Roman people, invested with imperium, or supreme23 power, a term in which for Romans was the essence of the higher magistracies. Since the provincial magistrate24 had no colleagues, and since the tribunician check upon him was inoperative beyond the first milestone25 from the city, the wielder26 of the imperium outside of Italy was at law and often in fact an absolute despot for the period of his office.
However, in theory his functions were divided as follows: first, he was the only officer with jurisdiction27 over the Roman citizens temporarily resident in the province; secondly28, he kept the peace; thirdly, he guaranteed the treaty rights of those communities that had treaties with Rome; and fourthly, he enforced and maintained the local customary law of all these communities. His judicial29 functions might include cases of all these kinds, so that in rapid succession the praetor or propraetor might be called upon to enforce the Twelve Tables and an ancient tribal30 usage of the Galatian Tectosages.
260The checks upon the holder31 of imperium at Rome consisted in the peculiar32 Roman theory of magistracy, one of the corollaries of which was the right of any other equal or superior magistrate, or of any tribune, to veto any administrative33 act. A second check lay in the right of appeal in capital cases to the people. A third was found in the accountability for every illegal or oppressive action. This accountability however existed only after the magistracy had expired.
Outside of Rome only the last check existed. For everything done beyond the functions enumerated34 above, it was possible, even usual, to attempt to make the governor responsible after his term of office was over. We know how frequently that attempt was futile35, and how constantly and flagrantly corrupt36 juries acquitted37 equally corrupt governors. “Catiline will be acquitted of extortion,” writes Cicero in 65 B.C.E., “if the jury believes that the sun does not shine at noon.”[277] The jury evidently thought so, since he was acquitted. But upon occasion, and generally when there were personal and political motives39 at work as well, these governors were convicted, so that there was always a certain risk attached to any attempt at playing the tyrant41 for the brief period of a governor’s authority.[278]
The Augustan monarchy43 brought no real change into the theory of provincial organization, except as to relatively44 unimportant details. But one great reform was instituted. The responsibility of the governor became a real one, and was sharply presented to those officials. For the provinces, accordingly, the advent45 of Augustus 261was an unmixed blessing46, since, except for a few sentimentalists, the presence of the Roman representative as the final court of appeal was not at all resented. We can accordingly understand the extravagance with which the rich and populous47 East, always the center of wealth and civilization, received the Reformer, and the unanimity48 and perhaps sincerity49 with which he was hailed as living god.[279]
We cannot be certain that this was encouraged by Augustus himself. There is nothing in his character that indicates any special sympathy with the point of view demanded by it; nothing of that daemonic strain noticeable in Alexander, which makes it easy to believe that the latter was one of the first to be convinced by the salutation of the priests of Ammon. But Augustus recognized at once the value for unity50 that the tendency to deify the monarch42 possessed51. The reverence52 for the living monarch, to be transformed into an undisguised worship at his death, was, however, to be superimposed upon existing forms. Nothing was more characteristically Roman than Augustus’ eagerness to make it clear that the vast domain53 of the empire was to remain, as before, a mass of disparate communities of which the populus Romanus was only one, although a paramount one, and that in each of these communities every effort was to be made to maintain the ancestral ritual in government and worship. What he added was simply the principle that to keep the community together, to prevent the chaos54 and anarchy55 of a dissolution of the empire, it was necessary to bestow56 on the princeps, on 262the First Citizen of the paramount Roman people, such powers and functions as would assure the coherence57 of the whole. These powers he selected himself. Such a step as that taken by the Constitution of Caracalla, which attempted to enforce a legal merging58 of all the communities into a single state, would have been nothing else than abhorrent59 to Augustus.[280] And, indeed, it was a distinctly un-Roman idea.
In Rome Augustus was chiefly intent upon a restoration of everything that could well be restored in the social, religious, and political life of the people. Certain of the political elements, such as the actual sovereignty of the populus, as far as it could be physically60 assembled in the Campus Martius, had to be abandoned, as demonstrably inconsistent with the larger purpose which Augustus had set himself. But in every other respect, he did not, as Julius Caesar had done, compel the Romans to face the unpleasant fact that a revolution had taken place, but professed61 to be simply a restorer of the ancient polity. Perhaps he did not face the facts himself. At any rate he seems sincerely to have believed that morality and sobriety could be reconstituted by statute62, and that one, by dint63 of willing, might live under Caesar as men lived under Numa—barring such un-Sabine additions as marble palaces and purple togas.
With his mind full of these views, Augustus could hardly be expected to regard favorably those tendencies in his own time which inevitably64 made for real unity of the empire in speech, blood, and religion. He was quite 263aware that this unity would not be produced by a coalescing65 of everything into new forms, but by the conquest of all or most of the existing elements by the one most powerful or most aggressive. Unchecked, it was likely that Greek speech would drive out Latin, Syrian blood dominate Roman, or any one of the various Oriental worships dislodge the Capitoline Triad.
On the last point he had even a definite policy of opposition66. His sagacious adviser67 Maecenas had laid great stress upon the ease with which foreign religions introduce a modification68 of habits of life, in his last words:[281]
Take active part in divine worship, in every way established by our ancestral customs, and compel others to respect religion, but avoid and punish those who attempt to introduce foreign elements into it. Do so not merely as a mark of honor to the gods—although you may be sure that anyone who despises them, sets little value upon anything—but because those who introduce new deities70 are by that very act persuading the masses to observe laws foreign to our own. Hence we have secret gatherings71 and assemblies of different sort, all of which are inconsistent with the monarchical72 principle.
His commendation of Gaius’ avoidance of sacrifice at Jerusalem was of a piece with this policy.[282]
The Jews in Rome, who had been directly favored by Caesar, had to be contented73, as far as Augustus was concerned, with freedom from molestation74. However, this freedom was real enough to enable their situation in Rome to reach the development hinted at in the Augustan poets, although their activities militated strongly against the most cherished plans of Augustus.
In the rest of the empire the Jews of the various 264communities found their situation unchanged. Even the obnoxious75 privileges which they had in several cities of Asia continued unimpaired,[283] and here the orthodox Jewish propaganda and a few generations later the heterodox Jewish propaganda made rapid strides.[284]
Judea belonged, in spite of the quasi-independence of Herod, to the province of Syria, which meant that such dues as Herod, the Jewish king, owed Rome would be enforced, if he were recalcitrant76, by the Roman legate at Antioch. Herod’s name throughout the empire was as much a synonym77 for wealth as it is now for cruelty. And his wealth and power advertised the Jews notably78, a fact which their propaganda could scarcely help turning to account.[285]
The attitude of the various Jewish synagogues and communes toward Judea was one that appeared to the men of the day as that which bound various colonies of a city to the mother-city. Indeed the Jewish communities outside of Palestine were styled explicitly79 colonies, ?ποικ?α. Such a tie, however, was conceived in the Greek fashion and not in the Roman. The Greek colony was bound to its mother-city by sentiment only, not, as in the case of the Romans, by law. That sentiment might be powerful enough at times, but it was not inconsistent with the bitterest warfare80. Consequently such movements as appear in Palestine need not at all have been reflected in the synagogues of the East and West, and there is nothing to indicate that the active and successful proselytizing81 of the Asiatic and Roman 265synagogues was either directed or systematically82 encouraged by the Pharisaic majority in the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem. It will at all times create a wholly false impression to speak of the Jews of that period as of a single community bound by common interests and open to identical influences. The independence of the Jewish congregations of one another was quite real, and was even insisted upon. Neither the high priest nor the Nasi of the Sanhedrin pretended to any authority except over those legally resident in Judea; and often, when the reverence for the temple and the holy city was most strongly emphasized, intense contempt might be manifested for those who were at the moment the holders83 of the supreme authority in the mother-country.
Another matter that is apt to be lost sight of in this connection is the fact that not all Jews of the time lived within the Roman empire. The Persian kingdom, which Alexander had conquered, and which the Seleucidae had with varying success attempted to maintain, had fallen to pieces long before the Roman occupation of Syria. Media, Babylonia, Bactria resumed a quasi-independence, which however was soon lost when the obscure province of Parthia—as Persis had done five centuries before—assumed a dominance that ended in direct supremacy84. The Roman limits were set at the river Euphrates, leaving Armenia a bloody85, debatable ground. The one great moment in the history of this new Parthian empire was the decisive defeat of Crassus at Carrhae in 58 B.C.E., a victory that gave the Parthians sufficient prestige to maintain themselves 266under conditions of domestic disorder86 that would ordinarily have been fatal. The Augustan poets and courtiers might magnify the return of the Roman standards by King Phraates to their hearts’ content. They might, as they did, exultantly87 proclaim that the Crassi were avenged88, that the known world to the shadowy confines of the Indus bowed to the will of the living god Augustus. The fact remained that, after Carrhae, the conquest of the country beyond the Euphrates ceased to be a part of the Roman programme, and, except for the transient successes of Trajan, was never seriously attempted.
In this Parthian kingdom, of which the capital was the ancient and indestructible city of Babylon, Jews had dwelt since the time of Nebuchadnezzar. There is even every reason to believe that those who remained at Babylon were decidedly not the least notable of the people in birth or culture. And between Babylon and Judea there was constant communication. When Babylon became the seat of the only power still existing that seemed formidable to Rome, it is obvious that the uninterrupted communication between the Jews of that section and the mother-country would create political situations of no slight delicacy90, and may have played a much more important part in determining the relations of the governing Romans to the Jews than our sources show.
That there was at all times a Parthian party among the Palestinian Jews there can be no doubt. We know too little of the history of Parthia to speak confidently 267on the subject, but Parthian rulers seem to have brought to the Jewish religious philosophy a larger measure of sympathy and comprehension than most Roman representatives. While the existence of Parthian sympathizers may date almost from the beginning of Parthian supremacy, their presence was very concretely manifested when Jannai’s son, Aristobulus, appealed to Parthia as Hyrcanus had appealed to Rome. Indeed a Parthian army invaded and captured Palestine, and gave Aristobulus’ son, Mattathiah-Antigonus, a brief lease of royal dignity. Every instance of dissatisfaction with the Roman government was the occasion for the rise of Parthian sympathies.
It may further be recalled that Parthia was the continuation of Persia. Of all foreign dominations the Persian rule was the one most regretted by the Jews, and the Persian king’s claim to reverence never died out in the regions once subject to him. We may remember with what humility92, some years later, Izates of Adiabene dismounted and walked on foot before the exiled Parthian king, although the latter had gone to him as a suppliant93, and had been prostrate94 in the dust before him. The prestige of the Great King, diminished considerably95 to be sure, had still not completely faded.[286]
The one general term that covered all the Jews of various types was “race of the Jews,” gens Iudaeorum, γ?νο? ?ουδα?ων. It was meant to be a racial descriptive appellation96, and was constantly combined with other adjectives denoting nationality or citizenship97. The temptation to make an actual unit of any group that can be covered by a single term is well-nigh irresistible98, 268and it is strengthened for us by the century-old associations that have made Palestine the embodiment of an ideal. Varying as the Jews of that time were in temperament99, character, occupations, position, and mental endowments, the fate and vicissitudes100 of the mother-country, and particularly of the holy metropolis101 Jerusalem, went home vividly102 to all of them, scattered103 as they were between the shores of the Caspian Sea and Spain. In this respect the gens Iudaeorum was a real unit. Their hearts were turned to the Zion Hill.
Not all Palestine, however, formed this mother-country. The mere69 fact that the Hasmoneans had brought a great deal of the surrounding territory under subjection, and made the boundaries of their power almost as extensive as those of David and Solomon, did not make a single country of their dominions104. The real metropolis was Jerusalem and its supporting territory of Judea. In this predominance of the city in post-Exilic Judaism, we may see either Greek influence or the continuance of the ancient city-state idea, as much a general characteristic of Eastern civilization as it is specifically of Greek. Not even undoubted Jewish descent, or loyalty105 to the Jewish Law, made of the adjacent lands an integral part of Judea. The Jews of Gaulonitis, Galilee, Ituraea, Peraea, Trachonitis, Idumaea, were, like the Jews of Rome, of Alexandria, or of Babylon, Jews of foreign nationality to inhabitants of Jerusalem, although the association was notably closer and the occasion of common performance of Jewish rites38 much more frequent than was the case with the more distant Jews.
TOMBS OF THE KINGS, VALLEY OF KEDRON, JERUSALEM
(From Wilson’s “Jerusalem”)
269The Idumean Herod had been confirmed by Rome in the sovereignty of a wide and miscellaneous territory, which included Greek cities, as well as these territorial units enumerated above. The favor he enjoyed granted him practically all the privileges that an independent sovereign could hold, except that of issuing gold coins.[287] Further, the authority was only for his life. The right of disposing of his dominions was no part of his power. His will was merely suggestive, and carried no weight beyond that.
His favor in the eyes of the Romans was based upon his scarcely disguised Hellenic sympathies and his proven loyalty to his masters. The Parthian invasion of 40 B.C.E. and the existence of Parthian sympathizers made the maintenance of order in Palestine a matter of the highest importance. The significance of these Eastern marches for the stability and safety of Rome was even greater than those of the North along the Rhine, where also constant turbulence106 was to be feared, and eternal vigilance was demanded. In the East, however, there was not merely a horde107 of plundering108 savages110 to be repelled111, but the aggression112 of an ancient and civilized113 power, bearing a title to prestige compared with which that of Macedonian and Roman was of recent growth. And Parthian successes here immediately jeopardized114 Egypt, already rapidly becoming the granary of the Empire.
Quite in accordance with Roman policy, indeed with ancient policy in general, Augustus vastly preferred to have the peace of this region assured by means of a reliable native government than directly by Roman administration. 270The Romans did not covet115 responsibility. If a native prince was trustworthy, it was a matter of common sense to permit him to undertake the arduous116 duty of policing the country rather than assume it themselves. The difficulty was to discover such a man or government. Experience and the suspiciousness that was almost a national trait convinced the Romans that only very few were to be trusted, and these not for long. In Herod, however, they seemed to have discovered a trustworthy instrument, and while it is not strictly117 true that the powers conferred upon him were of unexampled extent, they were undoubtedly118 unusual and amply justified119 the regal splendor120 Herod assumed. The readiness with which Herod’s loyalty to Antony was pardoned demonstrated the clear perception on the part of Augustus of how admirably Herod could serve Roman purposes here.
One of the motives that generally impelled121 Romans to permit native autonomy was no doubt to gain credit for generosity122 with their subjects. They might be forgiven for supposing that Roman rule would be more acceptable if it came indirectly123 through the medium of a king that was himself of Jewish stock. The distinction between Idumean and Jew proper would hardly be recognized by a Roman, although the distinction between the geographical124 entities125 of Idumaea and Judea was familiar enough.
But the Romans likewise knew and consciously exploited Herod’s unpopularity. Strabo states that the humiliating execution of Antigonus was intended 271to decrease the prestige of the latter and increase that of Herod.[288] Josephus and the Talmud would be ample evidences themselves of the hatred126 and the bitter antagonism127 with which Herod was regarded.[289] None the less it may well be that the unpopularity was largely personal, and produced by the violence and cruelties of which Herod was guilty. It appears so in Strabo’s account. Idumean descent cannot have been the principal reproach directed against Herod by his subjects. On more than one occasion the Idumeans had evinced their attachment128 to the Jewish Law.[290] Nor was Herod wholly without ardent129 supporters. In the cities which he had founded there were many men devoted130 to him. Even—or perhaps especially—among the priests, there was a distinctly Herodian faction91.[291] It is highly likely that hatred of Herod was especially strong in those who hated Rome as well, either through Parthian proclivities131 or because Rome seemed to present a danger to the maintenance of their institutions. And among these men were, it appears, most of those whose teachings have come down to us in the course of later tradition.
To the Romans this devotion of the Palestinian Jews to their Law seemed an excessive and even reprehensible132 thing. As we have seen, the Jews were qualified4 as superstitiosi, “superstitious” (above, p. 177). In general, to be sure, zeal133 for ancestral institutions was supported by the Romans, and they were not particularly concerned that foreign institutions should resemble theirs. However, if there were any from which a 272breach of the peace was to be apprehended134, they might be regarded as practices to be suppressed.
The Romans had shown for certain Jewish customs a very marked respect. The intense Jewish repugnance135 to images was at first difficult for Romans to realize, since they had been training themselves for generations to test the degree of civilization by the interest in the plastic arts. That there might be among barbarians136 no statues was natural enough: that the barbarians would refuse to take them when offered, was incomprehensible. But, hard though it was to realize, the Romans quickly enough did realize it. The capital concession137 of issuing no Roman coins for Judea with anything but the traditional symbols on them, of carefully eliminating those which bore the emperor’s effigy138, undoubtedly showed their good-will in the matter.[292] And the fact may be noted20 that after the coins celebrating the triumph of Vespasian and Titus, with the Latin and Greek legends ?ουδα?α? ?αλωκυ?α?, Iudaea capta, “For the Conquest of Judea,” no Roman coins with imperial effigies139 appear till the radical140 reorganization by Hadrian. That indicated clearly enough the extent to which the Romans were willing to respect what was to them a purely141 irrational142 prejudice.
One other matter was easier for Romans to comprehend, and that was the inviolable sanctity of certain things and places. It was a common enough conception that certain places were unapproachable to all but a few, ?δυτα; and that certain things, like the Palladium, suffered profanation143 from the slightest touch. They submitted 273accordingly with a good grace to exclusion144 from most of the temple precincts, and Nero[293] readily gave his consent to the building of the wall that prevented Agrippa II from turning the temple ceremonies into a show for his courtiers. The punishment of a Roman soldier, who tore a scroll145 of the Pentateuch, is another case in point. The soldier may have been a Syrian enrolled146 from the section in which he served, and not properly a Roman at all. None the less an arbitrary and distinctly unsympathetic procurator felt his responsibility for threatened disorders147 keenly enough to make this drastic example.[294]
Herod had kept order. He had done so with a high hand, and had met with frequent rebellions. Himself wholly inclined to complete Hellenization, he had made many efforts to conciliate his Jewish subjects. His lust148 for building he gratified only in the pagan cities subject to him. His coins bear no device except the inanimate objects and vegetable forms allowed by law and tradition. With cautious regard to certain openly expressed fears on the part of the Jews, he rebuilt the temple on a magnificent scale. He spoke149 of the Israelites as “our ancestors.”[295] As has been said, he did not wholly want adherents150 among priests and people. That he died as an embittered151 and vindictive152 despot, conscious of being generally detested153, and contriving154 fiendish plots to make his death deplored155, is probable enough, and is amply explained by the domestic difficulties with which he had to contend all his life.[296]
274In some cases at least, it was his zeal for orderly administration that caused friction156 with the people. His law sentencing burglars to foreign slavery is an instance (Jos. Ant. XVI. i. 1). In general, however, the mere suppression of more or less organized brigandage157 was a task that took all his attention, but this “brigandage” was often a real attempt at revolution, in which popular teachers were suspected of being implicated158, and every such suppression carried with it in its train a series of executions that did not increase the king’s popularity.
These “robbers” or “brigands159” were of different types. The distinction which Roman lawyers made between war proper, iustum bellum, and brigandage, latrocinium, was in Syria and the surrounding regions rather quantitative160 than qualitative161. So, after Herod’s first defeat by the Arabians, “he engaged in robberies,” το?ντε?θεν ? μ?ν ?ρ?δη? ληστε?αι? ?χρ?το (Jos. Ant. XV. v. 1), which meant only that he made short incursions into the enemy’s country, until he had the strength to attempt another pitched battle. So also of the Trachonitians (ibid. XVI. ix. 3). Every one of the expeditions in which the Hasmonean rulers had increased their dominions had been in the eyes of the Syrian historians “robberies.” Itureans and other Syrians had been guilty of them under the last Seleucids.[297] In the prologue162 to Pompeius Trogus’ Thirty-ninth Book, as contained in Justin’s epitome,[298] we hear the conquests of John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannai described as latrocinia. And again (xl. 2) we read that Pompey 275refused the petition of Antiochus, son of Cyzicenus, to be called king of Syria, on the ground that Antiochus had miserably163 shirked his responsibilities for eleven years, and he, Pompey, would not give him what he could not maintain, “lest he should again expose Syria to Jewish and Arabian brigands,” ne rursus Syriam Iudaeorum et Arabum latrociniis infestam reddat.
Herod had kept these robbers in check, and had effectually fulfilled his tacit engagement to the populus Romanus. His death immediately removed the strong hand. His son Archelaus found an insurrection on his hands almost at once, which he suppressed with great bloodshed. The moment he left for Rome to maintain his claims to a part of this inheritance, the governor of Syria suppressed another revolt; and hardly had he turned his back, when his procurator Sabinus found himself surrounded by a determined164 band of rebels recruited principally from Galilee, Idumaea, Jericho, and the trans-Jordan territory. In spite of a successful sortie by the Romans, Sabinus was nothing less than besieged165 in the Tower of Phasael.
Innumerable (μ?ριοι) disorders, Josephus tells us (Ant. XVII. x. 4), occurred at about the same time. Some two thousand of Herod’s soldiers engaged, as was so often the case, in plunder109 on their own account. Sepphoris in Galilee was seized and plundered166 by Judah, son of the highwayman (αρχιληστ??) Hezekiah, who made the neighboring country dangerous with his band of “madmen” (?πονενοημ?νοι). At Jericho Simon, a former slave of Herod, had himself proclaimed king 276and sacked the palace there. But more serious than these was the band of outlaws167 commanded by four brothers, of whom only Athronges is mentioned. These attacked both the local troops and even Roman detachments and were not suppressed till much later.[299]
All these disorders required the presence of Varus[300] once more. He marched on Jerusalem at the head of an army, turning over the various towns on his route to be sacked by his Arabian allies, precisely169 as both British and French used their Indian allies during the colonial wars in America.
The effect of such conditions in so critical a place as Judea, was to call Roman attention to the country to a much greater extent than was advantageous170 to the Jews. The region very naturally appeared to them as a turbulent and seditious section, much as Gaul did to Julius Caesar and largely for the same reason, the instinctive171 love of liberty and the presence of “innovators,” νεωτεριστα?, cupidi rerum novarum, restless and ambitious instigators of rebellion.[301] The Jerusalem Jews are, to be sure, very eager to escape the reproach of disloyalty. The rebellion was the work of outsiders (?π?λυδε?), to wit, the Galileans and Gileadites above-mentioned.[302]
Varus crucified two thousand men, and then disbanded his auxiliary172 army. The latter, composed obviously of natives of the country, proceeded to plunder on their own account. Varus’ prompt action brought them to terms. The officers were seized and sent to Rome, where, however, only the relatives of Herod, who had added impiety173 to treason, were punished.
277But the reproach of being a seditious people was resented by other Jews than those of Jerusalem. The Jews in Rome were largely descended174 from those who had left the country before even Antipater, Herod’s father, had become powerful there. On them, of course, the house of Herod could make no claim, and for obvious reasons closer relations with Rome seemed to them eminently175 desirable. The Jewish embassy which Varus had permitted the Judeans to send—how selected and led we have no information—was joined by an immense deputation from the Roman synagogues. The substance of their plea was the petition that they be made an integral part of the province of Syria. “For it will thus become evident whether they really are a seditious people, generally impatient of all forms of authority for any length of time” (Jos. Ant. XVII. ii. 2; Wars, II. vi. 2).
This plea, to be joined to Syria, is particularly significant if we remember that the motive40 of the Jews in sending the embassy was, in the words of the Wars (II. vi. 1), to plead for the autonomy of their nation (cf. Ant. XVII. xi. 1). We see strikingly confirmed the theory of the Roman provincial system, in which the proconsul or propraetor was only an official added to, but not superseding176, the local authorities.
The representative of Archelaus, Nicolaus of Damascus,[303] charged the former’s accusers with “rebellion and lust for sedition177,” with lack of that culture which consists in observance of right and law. Nicolaus had in view primarily the Jewish accusers of his 278employer, but no doubt made his remarks general. In the earlier version of the embassy, as it appears in the Wars (II. vi. 2), it is the whole nation that Nicolaus charges directly with “a natural lack of submission178 and loyalty to royal power.”
Augustus declined to continue the heterogeneous179 kingdom of Herod. A brief trial of Archelaus as ethnarch of Judea proper convinced him of the latter’s worthlessness. The request of the Jewish envoys180 was now granted. Judea became a part of Syria—and the agent or procurator of the Syrian proconsul took up official residence at Caesarea. We find, however, that this step, which the Jews themselves had suggested, almost immediately provoked a serious rebellion in Galilee, led by one Judah of Gamala in Galilee and by a Pharisee named Zadok, who, if we may believe Josephus, were appreciably181 different from the various “robbers,” ληστ??, whom he had formerly182 enumerated, and, in his eyes, even more detestable than they were. They placed their opposition on the basis of a principle. This principle was that of the sinfulness of all mortal government and the consequent rejection183 of Roman authority as well. Accordingly they refused to pay tribute. These advocates of a pure theocracy184 had of course obvious Scriptural warrant for their position, but the relatively rapid spread of such a doctrine185 in the form of an actual programme of resistance can be accounted for only by the extremely unsettled state of the country and the still more unsettled state of men’s minds.
279That this Judah formed a fourth sect89 of the Jews in addition to the three, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, already in existence, as Josephus tells us, may not be quite true.[304] Men of his type are scarcely founders186 of sects187. But there can be no doubt that the doctrines188 which these zealots espoused189 were those which Josephus has described. The later history of Europe has abundant examples of such groups of fanatic190 warriors191 maintaining one of many current religious dogmas, especially in times of economic and political disorder. Of such incidents the Hussite bands of Ziska and the Anabaptist insurrection are examples. In this case the distress192 and uncertainty193 were largely spiritual. The economic conditions, while bad, had not become particularly worse. Indeed, if anything, more direct administration had somewhat lightened the burdens, by making them less arbitrary and by removing the heavy expense of a court and the need of footing the bill for Herod’s building enterprises.
Josephus regards the great rebellion of 68 C.E. as the direct consequence of this insurrection of Judah. He is therefore very bitter against this “fourth philosophic194 system,” which spread among the younger men and brought the country to ruin. It is at least curious that in his earlier work, the Wars, in which the recollection of Jewish disaster would be, one would suppose, vastly more vivid, he does not ascribe to this rebellion any such far-reaching effects (Wars, II. viii. 1); nor is it in any degree likely that this insurrection was after all more than what it appears to be there, a sporadic195 280outburst in that hotbed of unrest, the Galilean hills, noteworthy only for the special zeal with which the theocratic196 principles were announced.
No riots or disturbances198 are mentioned in Judea till the famous image-riots of the time of Pontius Pilate. However we may wish to discount the highly colored narrative199 preserved in Josephus, there can be no doubt that these riots did take place. It may even be that the representation of influential200 Jews induced the much desired concession on Pilate’s part of removing the “images.” But what these images were does not appear with any clearness from Josephus’ account, and of course we are under no obligation to take literally201 the “five days and five nights” during which the ambassadors lay prostrate, with bare necks, at Pilate’s feet.
Josephus speaks of the “images of Caesar which are called standards” (Wars, II. ix. 2; Ant. XVIII. iii. 1). The Roman standards, signa, σημα?αι, often contained representations of the emperor. But these were in the form of medallions in flat relief, hung upon the standard. They would have been noticed only upon relatively close inspection202. There were also statues in the camp. But it is quite unlikely that if the Roman provincial administrators204 were instructed to issue no coins with the imperial effigy, they would be allowed to carry into the city actual statues of the emperor. They may well have forgotten that the military standards would be themselves offensive, if they bore, as they always did, the representation of animal forms. All 281legions at this time carried the eagle, and most of them had other heraldic animals as well.[305]
Now it may be remembered that the chief legion permanently205 encamped in Syria, of which detachments must have accompanied Pilate upon his transference of the praetorium from Caesarea to Jerusalem, was the Tenth Legion, called Fretensis (Leg. X Fretensis), and that its standards were a bull and a pig.[306] To the mass of the Jews the carrying, as though in triumph, of the gilded206 image of an unclean animal must have seemed nothing less than derision, and can easily explain the fury of the populace.
Another of the Syrian legions, of which certain divisions may have been with Pilate, was the Third Gallic Legion (Leg. III Gallica). This legion, like the X Fretensis, bore a bull as a standard, which, while less stimulating207 to the mass of the population, must have seemed even more than the pig the emblem208 of idolatry to those who had the history of their people in mind.[307]
If this was the occasion of the disturbance197, Pilate may well have been innocent of any provocative209 intention. That can scarcely have been altogether the case in the riots provoked by the aqueducts. Pilate seized certain sacred funds for that purpose, and in this case no official, Roman or Greek, could have failed to understand the nature of the funds or the offense210 involved in using them for secular211 purposes.
A certain significance is attached to the Samaritan episode mentioned by Josephus (Ant. XVIII. iv. 1). It is one of the incidents that become more and more frequent. 282The promises of a plausible212 thaumaturg cause an enormous throng168 to gather. It does not appear that he had any other purpose than that of obtaining credit as a prophet or magician. But Pilate, as most Roman governors would no doubt have done, held the unlicensed assemblage of armed men to be sedition, and suppressed it as such.
Shortly afterwards Palestine and the closely connected Egyptian communities were thrown into a frenzy213 of excitement by the widely advertised attempt of Gaius to set up his statue in the temple at Jerusalem. The imperial legate at Antioch had no desire whatever to arouse a rebellion in which all the forces of religious hatred would be let loose upon him. He therefore temporized214 and postponed215 at his own imminent216 peril217. In view of the constantly threatening attitude of Parthia, Petronius[308] may well have felt his responsibility with especial force. Only a few years before, an invasion on the part of the Parthian king Artabanus had been generally feared. Agrippa had even been accused of complicity with the Parthians.[309] The governor of Syria had every reason to hesitate to gratify the caprice of an obviously insane emperor at so great a risk to the state. Luckily for him, the assassination218 of Gaius saved him from the consequences of his hesitation219. His subsequent procedure against the people of Doris[310] indicated a lively comprehension on his part of the inflammable character of the people he had to govern and the particular importance to be attached to this question of images.
283To the Roman historian, the incident of Gaius’ attempted erection of his statue in the temple is only an illustration of the readiness with which this nation rebelled. Tacitus[311] treats the period between insurrections as one of smouldering revolt. The incident of Gaius precipitated220 an outbreak (Hist. v. 9), which his death calmed, and enabled the Jews to suppress their inclinations221 a few years longer. Duravit tamen patientia Iudaeis, he tells us, usque ad Gessium Florum procuratorem, “The submission of the Jews lasted till the procuratorship of Gessius Florus.”
The short reign15 of Herod’s popular grandson, Agrippa, “the great king Agrippa, friend of Caesar and the Romans,” as he calls himself on his coins and inscriptions,[312] rather confirmed Roman anxiety about the loyalty of their Jewish subjects than lightened it. It was by a complete adoption222 of Jewish customs—an adoption that can hardly have been sincere—that Agrippa secured and maintained his hold on their affections.[313] His deference223 to the religious leaders of the people was unqualified. His dealing224 with the Pharisee Simon, who publicly challenged his right to enter the temple precincts at all, is an illustration.[314] The Pharisaic tradition of his reign as preserved in the Talmud is that he was a pious225 and scrupulously226 observant Jew, painfully conscious that his Idumean origin made him half a stranger in Israel.
But to Rome Agrippa’s methods, in spite of their success, indicated only that no real progress had been made in the subjugation227 of Palestine. Rome was not 284without experience of lands difficult to subdue228. Gaul, Belgium, Germany, Britain, were all lands where insurrections might at any time be feared through the devotion of an influential minority to their ancestral customs. But in Palestine there was even less appreciable229 increase in Romanization or Hellenization of customs than in the countries mentioned. To an antiquary and scholar like the emperor Claudius there might be something interesting and admirable in the maintenance of an historic culture, but to the Roman administrative official, accountable for the security of the East, there was little that was admirable about it.
A quarrel between the Jews of Peraea and the neighboring city of Philadelphia may have had only local significance. And the Ptolemy executed by Fadus may have been only a common highwayman.[315] But a very little later the success of a certain Theudas, an “impostor,” γ?η? τι? ?ν?ρ, Josephus calls him, in gaining adherents as a prophet is highly significant.[316] This Theudas undertook to divide the Jordan, and pass across it with his followers230. It is noteworthy that every such claim to miraculous231 power immediately elicited232 drastic action on the part of the Romans. Theudas’ followers were cut down in a cavalry233 raid, and he himself was captured and beheaded. Roman officials apprehended danger chiefly from this source, and were particularly on their guard against it.
Such incidents as the riots provoked by individual soldiers cannot have been frequent. As has been said in one case, the Roman commander executed a soldier 285whose outrage234 had stirred up a revolt. But a garrison235 of foreign soldiers in a warlike country furnishes constant incentives236 to friction, which may at any time burst out into a general war. In Samaria and Galilee there were abundant pretexts237 for mutual attacks, the net result of which was that the land was full of brigandage, which indicates that the Roman police here were strikingly ineffective. And in all cases the suspicion that attached to every armed leader was that his motives were treasonable as well as criminal. So Dortus of Lydda was accused by the Samaritans of directly preaching rebellion.
Under Nero, says Josephus, the country went from bad to worse, and was filled with brigands and impostors.[317] How little it was possible to distinguish between these two classes appears from the fact that Josephus continually mentions them in couples. Those whom he calls Assassins, or Sicarii, can be placed in neither category. One thing is evident. Their apparently238 wanton murders must have had other incentives than pillage239, for even Josephus does not charge them with that; they were obviously animated240 by a purpose that may be called either patriotism241 or fanatic zeal, depending upon one’s bias242. That is shown plainly enough in a casual statement of Josephus that these brigands were attempting to foment243 by force a war on Rome, τ?ν δ?μον ε?? τ?ν πρ?? ?ωμα?οι? π?λεμον ?ρ?θιζον.
The usual “prophet,” in this case an unnamed Egyptian, appears with his promise to make the walls of Jerusalem fall at his command, and the usual attack 286of armed soldiers on a helpless group of unarmed fanatics244. In the Wars, Josephus speaks of a great number of these self-styled prophets (II. xiii. 4): “Cheats and vagabonds caused rebellion and total subversion245 of society, under the pretense246 of being divinely inspired. They infected the common people with madness, and led them into the desert with the promise that God would there show them how to gain freedom.” The procurator Felix took the customary measures of treating these expeditions as open sedition and crushing them with all the power at his command—acts which can only have inflamed247 the prevailing248 disorders.
The picture drawn249 by Josephus of the Judea of those days represents a condition nothing short of anarchy. Such a situation could have existed only under an incompetent250 Roman governor. Whether the procurator Gessius Florus was or was not quite the monster he is depicted251 as being in the Wars, he can scarcely have been an efficient administrator203. It is very likely that the various acts of cruelty imputed252 to him by Josephus were examples of the intemperate253 violence of a weak man exasperated254 by his own failure to control the situation. However this may be, it certainly was not the excesses of an individual governor that provoked the rebellion of 68 C.E., even if we accept Josephus’ account of him in full, and assume him to have been a second and worse Verres. The outbreak of that year was the result of causes lying far deeper in the condition of the time and the character of the people.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
overt
|
|
| adj.公开的，明显的，公然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
inauguration
|
|
| n.开幕、就职典礼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
epoch
|
|
| n.(新)时代；历元 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
qualified
|
|
| adj.合格的，有资格的，胜任的，有限制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
saluted
|
|
| v.欢迎，致敬( salute的过去式和过去分词 )；赞扬，赞颂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
wielded
|
|
| 手持着使用（武器、工具等）( wield的过去式和过去分词 )； 具有； 运用（权力）； 施加（影响） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
enumerate
|
|
| v.列举，计算，枚举，数 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
minor
|
|
| adj.较小(少)的，较次要的；n.辅修学科；vi.辅修 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
queries
|
|
| n.问题( query的名词复数 )；疑问；询问；问号v.质疑，对…表示疑问( query的第三人称单数 )；询问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
Mediterranean
|
|
| adj.地中海的；地中海沿岸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
constrained
|
|
| adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
paramount
|
|
| a.最重要的，最高权力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
provincial
|
|
| adj.省的，地方的；n．外省人，乡下人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
civic
|
|
| adj.城市的，都市的，市民的，公民的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
territorial
|
|
| adj.领土的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
magisterial
|
|
| adj.威风的，有权威的；adv.威严地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
jumble
|
|
| vt.使混乱，混杂；n.混乱；杂乱的一堆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
magistrate
|
|
| n.地方行政官，地方法官，治安官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
milestone
|
|
| n.里程碑；划时代的事件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
wielder
|
|
| 行使者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
jurisdiction
|
|
| n.司法权，审判权，管辖权，控制权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
judicial
|
|
| adj.司法的，法庭的，审判的，明断的，公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
tribal
|
|
| adj.部族的，种族的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
holder
|
|
| n.持有者，占有者；(台，架等)支持物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
administrative
|
|
| adj.行政的，管理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
enumerated
|
|
| v.列举，枚举，数( enumerate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
futile
|
|
| adj.无效的，无用的，无希望的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
corrupt
|
|
| v.贿赂，收买；adj.腐败的，贪污的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
acquitted
|
|
| 宣判…无罪( acquit的过去式和过去分词 )； 使（自己）作出某种表现 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
rites
|
|
| 仪式，典礼( rite的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
tyrant
|
|
| n.暴君，专制的君主，残暴的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
monarch
|
|
| n.帝王，君主，最高统治者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
monarchy
|
|
| n.君主，最高统治者；君主政体，君主国 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
relatively
|
|
| adv.比较...地，相对地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
advent
|
|
| n.(重要事件等的)到来，来临 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
blessing
|
|
| n.祈神赐福；祷告；祝福，祝愿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
populous
|
|
| adj.人口稠密的，人口众多的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
unanimity
|
|
| n.全体一致，一致同意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
sincerity
|
|
| n.真诚，诚意；真实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
unity
|
|
| n.团结，联合，统一；和睦，协调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
reverence
|
|
| n.敬畏，尊敬，尊严；Reverence:对某些基督教神职人员的尊称；v.尊敬，敬畏，崇敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
domain
|
|
| n.(活动等)领域，范围；领地，势力范围 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
chaos
|
|
| n.混乱，无秩序 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
anarchy
|
|
| n.无政府状态；社会秩序混乱，无秩序 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
bestow
|
|
| v.把…赠与，把…授予；花费 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
coherence
|
|
| n.紧凑；连贯；一致性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
merging
|
|
| 合并（分类） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
abhorrent
|
|
| adj.可恶的，可恨的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
physically
|
|
| adj.物质上，体格上，身体上，按自然规律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
professed
|
|
| 公开声称的，伪称的，已立誓信教的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
statute
|
|
| n.成文法，法令，法规；章程，规则，条例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
dint
|
|
| n.由于，靠；凹坑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
inevitably
|
|
| adv.不可避免地；必然发生地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
coalescing
|
|
| v.联合，合并( coalesce的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
adviser
|
|
| n.劝告者，顾问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
modification
|
|
| n.修改，改进，缓和，减轻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
deities
|
|
| n.神，女神( deity的名词复数 )；神祗；神灵；神明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
gatherings
|
|
| 聚集( gathering的名词复数 )； 收集； 采集； 搜集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
monarchical
|
|
| adj. 国王的，帝王的，君主的，拥护君主制的 =monarchic | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
contented
|
|
| adj.满意的，安心的，知足的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
molestation
|
|
| n.骚扰，干扰，调戏；折磨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
obnoxious
|
|
| adj.极恼人的，讨人厌的，可憎的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
recalcitrant
|
|
| adj.倔强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
synonym
|
|
| n.同义词，换喻词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
notably
|
|
| adv.值得注意地，显著地，尤其地，特别地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
explicitly
|
|
| ad.明确地，显然地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
warfare
|
|
| n.战争(状态)；斗争；冲突 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
proselytizing
|
|
| v.（使）改变宗教信仰[政治信仰、意见等]，使变节( proselytize的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
82
systematically
|
|
| adv.有系统地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
holders
|
|
| 支持物( holder的名词复数 )； 持有者； （支票等）持有人； 支托（或握持）…之物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
supremacy
|
|
| n.至上；至高权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
bloody
|
|
| adj.非常的的；流血的；残忍的；adv.很；vt.血染 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
disorder
|
|
| n.紊乱，混乱；骚动，骚乱；疾病，失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
exultantly
|
|
| adv.狂欢地，欢欣鼓舞地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
avenged
|
|
| v.为…复仇，报…之仇( avenge的过去式和过去分词 )；为…报复 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
sect
|
|
| n.派别，宗教，学派，派系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
delicacy
|
|
| n.精致，细微，微妙，精良；美味，佳肴 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
faction
|
|
| n.宗派，小集团；派别；派系斗争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
humility
|
|
| n.谦逊，谦恭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
suppliant
|
|
| adj.哀恳的；n.恳求者，哀求者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
prostrate
|
|
| v.拜倒，平卧，衰竭；adj.拜倒的，平卧的，衰竭的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
considerably
|
|
| adv.极大地；相当大地；在很大程度上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
appellation
|
|
| n.名称，称呼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
citizenship
|
|
| n.市民权，公民权，国民的义务(身份) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
irresistible
|
|
| adj.非常诱人的，无法拒绝的，无法抗拒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
temperament
|
|
| n.气质，性格，性情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
vicissitudes
|
|
| n.变迁，世事变化；变迁兴衰( vicissitude的名词复数 )；盛衰兴废 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
metropolis
|
|
| n.首府；大城市 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
vividly
|
|
| adv.清楚地，鲜明地，生动地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
scattered
|
|
| adj.分散的，稀疏的；散步的；疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
dominions
|
|
| 统治权( dominion的名词复数 )； 领土； 疆土； 版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
loyalty
|
|
| n.忠诚，忠心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
turbulence
|
|
| n.喧嚣，狂暴，骚乱，湍流 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
horde
|
|
| n.群众，一大群 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
plundering
|
|
| 掠夺，抢劫( plunder的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
plunder
|
|
| vt.劫掠财物，掠夺；n.劫掠物，赃物；劫掠 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
savages
|
|
| 未开化的人，野蛮人( savage的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
repelled
|
|
| v.击退( repel的过去式和过去分词 )；使厌恶；排斥；推开 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
aggression
|
|
| n.进攻，侵略，侵犯，侵害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
civilized
|
|
| a.有教养的，文雅的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
jeopardized
|
|
| 危及，损害( jeopardize的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
covet
|
|
| vt.垂涎；贪图(尤指属于他人的东西) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
arduous
|
|
| adj.艰苦的，费力的，陡峭的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
splendor
|
|
| n.光彩；壮丽，华丽；显赫，辉煌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
impelled
|
|
| v.推动、推进或敦促某人做某事( impel的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
generosity
|
|
| n.大度，慷慨，慷慨的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
indirectly
|
|
| adv.间接地，不直接了当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
geographical
|
|
| adj.地理的；地区(性)的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
entities
|
|
| 实体对像； 实体，独立存在体，实际存在物( entity的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
antagonism
|
|
| n.对抗，敌对，对立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
attachment
|
|
| n.附属物，附件；依恋；依附 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
ardent
|
|
| adj.热情的，热烈的，强烈的，烈性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
proclivities
|
|
| n.倾向，癖性( proclivity的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
reprehensible
|
|
| adj.该受责备的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
zeal
|
|
| n.热心，热情，热忱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
apprehended
|
|
| 逮捕，拘押( apprehend的过去式和过去分词 )； 理解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
repugnance
|
|
| n.嫌恶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
barbarians
|
|
| n.野蛮人( barbarian的名词复数 )；外国人；粗野的人；无教养的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
concession
|
|
| n.让步，妥协；特许(权) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
effigy
|
|
| n.肖像 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
effigies
|
|
| n.（人的）雕像，模拟像，肖像( effigy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
radical
|
|
| n.激进份子，原子团，根号；adj.根本的，激进的，彻底的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
irrational
|
|
| adj.无理性的，失去理性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
profanation
|
|
| n.亵渎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
exclusion
|
|
| n.拒绝，排除，排斥，远足，远途旅行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
scroll
|
|
| n.卷轴，纸卷；(石刻上的)漩涡 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
enrolled
|
|
| adj.入学登记了的v.[亦作enrol]( enroll的过去式和过去分词 )；登记，招收，使入伍（或入会、入学等），参加，成为成员；记入名册；卷起，包起 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
disorders
|
|
| n.混乱( disorder的名词复数 )；凌乱；骚乱；（身心、机能）失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
lust
|
|
| n.性(淫)欲；渴(欲)望；vi.对…有强烈的欲望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
adherents
|
|
| n.支持者，拥护者( adherent的名词复数 )；党羽；徒子徒孙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
embittered
|
|
| v.使怨恨，激怒( embitter的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
vindictive
|
|
| adj.有报仇心的，怀恨的，惩罚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
detested
|
|
| v.憎恶，嫌恶，痛恨( detest的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
contriving
|
|
| （不顾困难地）促成某事( contrive的现在分词 )； 巧妙地策划，精巧地制造（如机器）； 设法做到 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
deplored
|
|
| v.悲叹，痛惜，强烈反对( deplore的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
friction
|
|
| n.摩擦，摩擦力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
brigandage
|
|
| n.抢劫；盗窃；土匪；强盗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
implicated
|
|
| adj.密切关联的；牵涉其中的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
brigands
|
|
| n.土匪，强盗( brigand的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
quantitative
|
|
| adj.数量的，定量的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
qualitative
|
|
| adj.性质上的，质的，定性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
prologue
|
|
| n.开场白，序言；开端，序幕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
miserably
|
|
| adv.痛苦地；悲惨地；糟糕地；极度地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
besieged
|
|
| 包围，围困，围攻( besiege的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
plundered
|
|
| 掠夺，抢劫( plunder的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
outlaws
|
|
| 歹徒，亡命之徒( outlaw的名词复数 )； 逃犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
throng
|
|
| n.人群，群众；v.拥挤，群集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
advantageous
|
|
| adj.有利的；有帮助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
instinctive
|
|
| adj.(出于)本能的；直觉的；(出于)天性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
auxiliary
|
|
| adj.辅助的，备用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
impiety
|
|
| n.不敬；不孝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
descended
|
|
| a.为...后裔的，出身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
eminently
|
|
| adv.突出地；显著地；不寻常地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
superseding
|
|
| 取代，接替( supersede的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
sedition
|
|
| n.煽动叛乱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
submission
|
|
| n.服从，投降；温顺，谦虚；提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
heterogeneous
|
|
| adj.庞杂的；异类的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
envoys
|
|
| 使节( envoy的名词复数 )； 公使； 谈判代表； 使节身份 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
appreciably
|
|
| adv.相当大地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
rejection
|
|
| n.拒绝，被拒，抛弃，被弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
theocracy
|
|
| n.神权政治；僧侣政治 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
185
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
186
founders
|
|
| n.创始人( founder的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
187
sects
|
|
| n.宗派，教派( sect的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
188
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
189
espoused
|
|
| v.（决定）支持，拥护（目标、主张等）( espouse的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
190
fanatic
|
|
| n.狂热者，入迷者；adj.狂热入迷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
191
warriors
|
|
| 武士，勇士，战士( warrior的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
192
distress
|
|
| n.苦恼，痛苦，不舒适；不幸；vt.使悲痛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
193
uncertainty
|
|
| n.易变，靠不住，不确知，不确定的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
194
philosophic
|
|
| adj.哲学的，贤明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
195
sporadic
|
|
| adj.偶尔发生的 [反]regular；分散的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
196
theocratic
|
|
| adj.神权的，神权政治的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
197
disturbance
|
|
| n.动乱，骚动；打扰，干扰；(身心)失调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
198
disturbances
|
|
| n.骚乱( disturbance的名词复数 )；打扰；困扰；障碍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
199
narrative
|
|
| n.叙述，故事；adj.叙事的，故事体的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
200
influential
|
|
| adj.有影响的，有权势的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
201
literally
|
|
| adv.照字面意义，逐字地；确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
202
inspection
|
|
| n.检查，审查，检阅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
203
administrator
|
|
| n.经营管理者，行政官员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
204
administrators
|
|
| n.管理者( administrator的名词复数 )；有管理（或行政）才能的人；（由遗嘱检验法庭指定的）遗产管理人；奉派暂管主教教区的牧师 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
205
permanently
|
|
| adv.永恒地，永久地，固定不变地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
206
gilded
|
|
| a.镀金的，富有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
207
stimulating
|
|
| adj.有启发性的，能激发人思考的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
208
emblem
|
|
| n.象征，标志；徽章 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
209
provocative
|
|
| adj.挑衅的，煽动的，刺激的，挑逗的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
210
offense
|
|
| n.犯规，违法行为；冒犯，得罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
211
secular
|
|
| n.牧师，凡人；adj.世俗的，现世的，不朽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
212
plausible
|
|
| adj.似真实的，似乎有理的，似乎可信的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
213
frenzy
|
|
| n.疯狂，狂热，极度的激动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
214
temporized
|
|
| v.敷衍( temporize的过去式和过去分词 )；拖延；顺应时势；暂时同意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
215
postponed
|
|
| vt.& vi.延期，缓办，（使）延迟vt.把…放在次要地位；[语]把…放在后面（或句尾）vi.（疟疾等）延缓发作（或复发） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
216
imminent
|
|
| adj.即将发生的，临近的，逼近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
217
peril
|
|
| n.(严重的)危险；危险的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
218
assassination
|
|
| n.暗杀；暗杀事件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
219
hesitation
|
|
| n.犹豫，踌躇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
220
precipitated
|
|
| v.（突如其来地）使发生( precipitate的过去式和过去分词 )；促成；猛然摔下；使沉淀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
221
inclinations
|
|
| 倾向( inclination的名词复数 )； 倾斜； 爱好； 斜坡 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
222
adoption
|
|
| n.采用，采纳，通过；收养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
223
deference
|
|
| n.尊重，顺从；敬意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
224
dealing
|
|
| n.经商方法，待人态度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
225
pious
|
|
| adj.虔诚的；道貌岸然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
226
scrupulously
|
|
| adv.一丝不苟地；小心翼翼地，多顾虑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
227
subjugation
|
|
| n.镇压，平息，征服 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
228
subdue
|
|
| vt.制服，使顺从，征服；抑制，克制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
229
appreciable
|
|
| adj.明显的，可见的，可估量的，可觉察的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
230
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
231
miraculous
|
|
| adj.像奇迹一样的，不可思议的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
232
elicited
|
|
| 引出，探出( elicit的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
233
cavalry
|
|
| n.骑兵；轻装甲部队 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
234
outrage
|
|
| n.暴行，侮辱，愤怒；vt.凌辱，激怒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
235
garrison
|
|
| n.卫戍部队；驻地，卫戍区；vt.派(兵)驻防 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
236
incentives
|
|
| 激励某人做某事的事物( incentive的名词复数 )； 刺激； 诱因； 动机 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
237
pretexts
|
|
| n.借口，托辞( pretext的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
238
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
239
pillage
|
|
| v.抢劫；掠夺；n.抢劫，掠夺；掠夺物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
240
animated
|
|
| adj.生气勃勃的，活跃的，愉快的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
241
patriotism
|
|
| n.爱国精神，爱国心，爱国主义 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
242
bias
|
|
| n.偏见，偏心，偏袒；vt.使有偏见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
243
foment
|
|
| v.煽动，助长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
244
fanatics
|
|
| 狂热者，入迷者( fanatic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
245
subversion
|
|
| n.颠覆，破坏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
246
pretense
|
|
| n.矫饰，做作，借口 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
247
inflamed
|
|
| adj.发炎的，红肿的v.（使）变红，发怒，过热( inflame的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
248
prevailing
|
|
| adj.盛行的；占优势的；主要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
249
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
250
incompetent
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能胜任的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
251
depicted
|
|
| 描绘，描画( depict的过去式和过去分词 )； 描述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
252
imputed
|
|
| v.把（错误等）归咎于( impute的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
253
intemperate
|
|
| adj.无节制的，放纵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
254
exasperated
|
|
| adj.恼怒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |