but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.

And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom 21 they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall

kingdom (i.e. of his own kingdom) to pass away,'—with allusion to the inglorious reign of Seleucus IV.

but within few days (Gen. xxvii. 44, xxix. 20, Heb.) he shall be broken, but not in anger, or in battle] not by a passionate deed of violence, and not in open fight, but (it is implied) in some less honourable way in point of fact, Seleucus, after an uneventful reign of 12 years, met his death, perhaps by poison, through a plot headed by his chief minister, Heliodorus (Appian, Syr. c. 45 è èπißovλns 'Hodpov). The 'few days' may be reckoned either from the mission of Heliodorus, or perhaps from the inception of the plot in either case the general meaning will be that he would come to a speedy and untimely end.

broken] i.e. ruined; of a person, as Prov. vi. 15, xxix. 1; ch. viii. 25. Cf. v. 26, below.

in anger] if this is the meaning, the Heb. is very unusual; Behrmann suggests, on the strength of Aramaic analogies (cf. P. S. col. 278, bottom), that the expression may perhaps mean openly.

21-45. Antiochus IV. (Epiphanes), 175-164.

21. Antiochus' accession. Antiochus was the younger brother of Seleucus Philopator; and, in accordance with the terms of the peace concluded by Antiochus the Great with the Romans (p. 175), he had been, for 14 years, one of the Syrian hostages at Rome1: Seleucus, in his 12th year had recalled him, sending, to take his place at Rome, his own son Demetrius (a boy aged 11 or 12); and it was while he was at Athens, on his way back to Antioch, that Seleucus was murdered by Heliodorus (above, on v. 20). Heliodorus aspired naturally to the throne, but was thwarted in his designs by Eumenes, king of Pergamum, and his brother, Attalus, who, as Antiochus was proceeding homewards, met him, unsolicited (åπapaкλýτws), with great friendliness, supplied him with money and troops, and so enabled him to secure the throne. An inscription has been recently discovered at Pergamum, recording a vote of thanks passed by the Council and people of Antioch to Eumenes and Attalus for the help thus given by them to Antiochus (see p. 205 f.).

And in his place shall stand up a contemptible person] Antiochus IV., called 'contemptible' (more lit. despised, Ps. xv. 4 (R.V.), cxix. 141) on account of his character (p. xxxviii f.), perhaps also in intentional opposition to the title 'Epiphanes.' In 1 Macc. i. 10 he is called a sinful root.'

I

upon whom had not been conferred the majesty of the kingdom]

1 He had been well treated during these years, as he afterwards boasted in a message sent to the Senate (Livy xlii. 6), 'Ea merita in se senatus fuisse, quum Romae esset, eam comitatem iuventutis, ut pro rege, non pro obside, omnibus ordinibus fuerit.'

DANIEL

12

come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

The phrase, exactly as (in the Heb.) 1 Ch. xxix. 25 ('bestow,' lit. put), and Num. xxvii. 20 (A.V., R.V., weakly, 'honour'). The words, taken in conjunction with the two following clauses, imply that Antiochus had not been generally regarded as the heir to the throne, but that he gained it partly by a coup d'état, partly by address. His nephew, Demetrius, the son of Seleucus Philopator, was the lawful heir; but, as has been just said, he was a child, and also now a hostage at Rome.

but he shall come in (time of) security] i.e. unawares (v. 24, viii. 25). by flatteries] or smooth sayings, i.e. plausible representations, the exact nature of which we do not know. Cf. viii. 23, which speaks of his mastery in dissimulation (' '). The details are unknown to us but it is quite possible that the support given to Antiochus by Eumenes and Attalus took the Antiochenes by surprise: it would be entirely in accordance with Antiochus' character that he should afterwards ingratiate himself with the people, and lead them to thank his two friends publicly for the part they had taken in securing him the kingdom. According to Jerome, there was a party in Syria, which supported the claims of his nephew (see on v. 17), the youthful son of Ptolemy Epiphanes and Cleopatra (afterwards Ptolemy Philometor), and refused to recognize Antiochus until he had disarmed their opposition simulatione clementiae.

Before proceeding further, it will be convenient to give a summary of the chief events of Antiochus Epiphanes' reign1.

Antiochus' first expedition into Egypt (B.C. 170). The death, soon after Antiochus' accession, in 174 or 173, of his sister, Cleopatra, widow of Ptolemy Epiphanes, was the signal for fresh complications with Egypt. His nephew, Ptolemy Philometor, who was a boy of not more than 15 years old, fell now under the influence of his guardians, the eunuch Eulaeus and a Syrian named Lenaeus, who assured him that, if he would but make the attempt, he would easily recover for Egypt her Syrian possessions. Antiochus, learning through Apollonius, the governor of Cole-Syria (whom he had sent to attend the enthronement of Philometor), Egyptian feeling towards himself, proceeded to act without further delay. First, with the intention, no doubt, of making himself popular with the Jews, he visited Jerusalem, and received there, at the instance of the Hellenizing high-priest Jason (above, on ix. 26), a magnificent welcome (2 Macc. iv. 21, 22). After this, he led his army into Phoenicia (ibid.). Both parties, now that

1 The principal authorities are Polybius xxvi. 10, xxvii. 17, xxviii. 1, 16, 17, 18, 19, xxix. 1, 11, xxxi. 3, 4, 5, 11; Livy xli. 20, xlii. 6, 29, xliv. 19, xlv. 11, 12, Porphyry (as cited by Jerome on Dan. xi. 21 ff.), who states (see p. 622, ed. Bened.) that he follows various Greek authorities, including some now lost. Some uncertainty arises (especially as regards the 1st and 2nd Egyptian expeditions) from the fact that the records (in particular those of Polyb.) are incomplete, Among modern authorities, reference may be made in particular to J. F. Hoffmann, Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, 1873; and U. Wilcken's art. Antiochus IV., in Pauly-Wissowa's RealEncyclopädie (1894).

hostilities were actually beginning, sent embassies to Rome, each hoping to enlist the sympathies of the Senate, and each laying the blame of the war upon the other,-Antiochus declaring that he held the Syrian provinces by inheritance from his father Antiochus the Great, and that he was only defending rights which had been unjustly (πаρà Távтa тà díkαιa) attacked, while Ptolemy contended that Antiochus the Great had taken advantage of the youth of his father, Ptolemy Epiphanes, to wrest these provinces from him. Nothing, however, of importance resulted from these embassies, and hostilities continued. In 170 B.C. Antiochus marched into Egypt with a considerable force (1 Macc. i. 17), defeated Ptolemy's troops between Pelusium and Mons Časius, and --by some dishonourable means which Polybius censures (xxviii. 7. 16) -obtained possession of the important border-fortress-the claustra Aegypti, as Livy calls it (xlv.. 11)—of Pelusium. It was the clemency shewn by Antiochus in the battle near Pelusium-he rode about among his troops, and would not permit them to massacre the defeated Egyptians that won for him the favour of the Egyptians, and facilitated considerably both his capture of Pelusium, and his subsequent conquest of Egypt (Diod. xxx. 14). After the fall of Pelusium, Eulaeus, it seems, persuaded Ptolemy to abandon his kingdom, and retire to Samothrace (Polyb. xxviii. 17a); but,-apparently on the way thither,— he was intercepted, and fell into his uncle's hands. According to Jerome, Antiochus now, simulating friendship with his nephew, proceeded to Memphis, where ex more Aegypti he was crowned1; and pretending to be acting in Philometor's interests (puerique rebus se providere dicens), succeeded in occupying the whole of Egypt (cf. 1 Macc. i. 18-20), an act in which, Jerome adds, tam callidus fuit, ut prudentes cogitationes eorum qui duces pueri erant, sua fraude subverteret2. After this Antiochus prepared to return to Syria. Meanwhile, however, disturbances had arisen in Jerusalem. rumour having been current of the death of Antiochus, Jason, the deposed and exiled high-priest (above, on ix. 26), thought the opportunity a favourable one for recovering his former position; so he attacked Jerusalem with 1000 men, and compelled Menelaus to take refuge in the citadel, but misusing his success for the purpose of slaughtering his own countrymen, was obliged to retire again to the country of the Ammonites (2 Macc. v. 5-10). Antiochus, hearing of these proceedings, thought Jerusalem was in revolt: so on his return from Egypt, he made a détour through Judaea, and entering the city with his army, massacred many of the inhabitants, penetrated into the sanctuary, and carried away all the sacred vessels, as well as all the other gold and silver that he could find there (1 Macc. i. 20-24; also, probably with some exaggeration, 2 Macc. v. 11-17, 21: cf. Jos. B. J. 1. i. 1)3. In all this Antiochus was supported by Menelaus and his other Hellenizing

1 Cf. the coin, No. 4, on the Plate, p. 192.

A

Hoffmann thinks that the first campaign against Egypt ended at Pelusium, his occupation of Egypt, mentioned above, in Jerome's condensed account, belonging really to his second campaign.

8 The statement in 2 Macc. v. I that these events took place on Antiochus's return from his second expedition into Egypt, appears to be erroneous.

friends among the Jews; indeed, according to Josephus (Ant. XII. v. 3) they opened the gates of Jerusalem to admit him.

Antiochus second expedition into Egypt (B.C. 169). It was probably during Antiochus' absence from Egypt that Philometor's younger brother, Ptolemy Physcon (afterwards Euergetes II.), was proclaimed king in Alexandria. This led to Antiochus' second invasion of Egypt (B.C. 169), in which he gave out that he was acting from the honourable motive of restoring his nephew and ally, Philometor, to his lawful rights1, while, of course, in reality he was simply playing off one brother against the other with the object of securing all for himself. Having defeated the Egyptian fleet in naval battle near Pelusium, he marched to Memphis, and then sailed down the Nile towards Alexandria. A little S. of Naukratis he was met by an embassy of Achaeans and others, who came on behalf of Physcon to treat for peace. Antiochus received the envoys courteously, and listened to their arguments. They cast the whole blame for what had occurred upon Lenaeus; and referring to Ptolemy's youth, and his relationship to himself, entreated the king to lay aside his anger. Antiochus replied, stating at length the grounds on which he claimed Syria: it had been held by Antigonus, the founder of the Syrian empire, it had been afterwards ceded formally by the Macedonian kings to his son, Seleucus, and it had been conquered afresh by his own father, Antiochus the Great: the agreement, by which, as was alleged, it had been granted by Antiochus the Great to Cleopatra as a dowry (above, on v. 17) he entirely denied. Polybius adds that he convinced all who heard him of the justice of his contention (ws dikala λéyei). After this, Antiochus sailed on to Naukratis, where he treated the inhabitants graciously, giving to every Greek resident a gold coin. He then proceeded to lay siege to Alexandria. During the siege an embassy of Rhodians approached Antiochus with proposals for peace; but these envoys he cut short in their arguments by remarking that "the kingdom belonged to Ptolemy Philometor, that with him he had long been at peace [viz. since he fell into his hands, after the battle of Pelusium], and they were both friends; if therefore the Alexandrians were prepared to call Philometor back, he would not stand in their way." We do not know how long the siege of Alexandria continued; but the city must have suffered in it severely; Livy (xliv. 19) narrates how an embassy sent on behalf of Physcon to Rome, made a piteous appeal to the Senate, declaring that unless help were 'speedily forthcoming, the whole of Egypt would fall into the hands of Antiochus. C. Popillius Laenas, and two other envoys, were accordingly deputed by the Senate to terminate the war between the two kings, and to inform both that, whichever persisted in hostilities would not be regarded by the Romans as their friend or ally. However, before these envoys could reach Egypt, Antiochus, finding himself unable to take Alexandria, withdrew to Syria, leaving Philometor, cui regnum quaeri suis viribus simulabat ut victorem mox aggrederetur

رو

This was the speciosus titulus with the help of which, by means of letters and embassies, he sought to win the sympathy of all the cities of Asia and Greece (Liv. xlv. 11).

(Livy xlv. 11), as nominal king at Memphis, and stationing a strong garrison in Pelusium.

Antiochus' third expedition into Egypt (B. C. 168). The garrison left in Pelusium, the 'key of Egypt,' opened Philometor's eyes it was evident that Antiochus wished to be in a position to return to Egypt with his army when he pleased, and also that the end of the war between the two brothers would be that the victor, whichever he was, would fall afterwards an easy prey to Antiochus. Accordingly Philometor made overtures of peace to Physcon, which, being seconded by Physcon's friends, and warmly supported by his sister, Cleopatra, were listened to favourably: before long a reconciliation was effected and Philometor was received into Alexandria (Livy xlv. 11). As Livy drily remarks, if Antiochus' real object had been to restore Philometor to his throne, he ought to have rejoiced at this reconciliation: in point of fact, however, he was so incensed at it, that he proceeded (B.c. 168) to attack the two brothers with far greater animosity (multo acrius infestiusque) than he had ever displayed towards the one. His fleet he sent on at once to Cyprus; he himself, at the beginning of spring, marched by land through ColeSyria towards Egypt. At Rhinocolura, the border-stream of Egypt, he was met by the envoys of Philometor, who endeavoured to appease him by assuring him that their master gratefully recognized that it was by Antiochus' help that he had regained his kingdom, and that he hoped the king would still continue to be his friend. Antiochus replied that he would recall neither his army nor his fleet unless the whole of Cyprus were ceded to him, as well as Pelusium, and the country about the Pelusiac arm of the Nile; and appointed a day before which Philometor should declare whether he accepted these terms or not. As no answer came within the stipulated time, Antiochus advanced to Memphis, was well received by the people, 'partly from good-will, partly from fear,' and then proceeded by leisurely stages to Alexandria. At Eleusis, four miles from Alexandria, he was met by Popillius Laenas and the other Koman legates. He offered Popillius his hand. The Roman held out to him the ultimatum of the Senate, and bade him first read that. Antiochus, having read it, replied that he would consider with his friends what he would do. Popillius, pro cetera asperitate animi (cf. xlv. 10), drew with his staff a circle round the king; and bade him give his answer to the Senate before leaving that circle. Antiochus was taken aback at this unexpected demand; but, after a moment's hesitation, he replied, 'I will do what the Senate desires.' Then Popillius took his proffered hand. Antiochus was obliged to evacuate Egypt by a specified day; the Roman legates then took measures to consolidate the peace between the two brothers, and sailing to Cyprus, obliged the forces of Antiochus (which had already obtained a victory over the Egyptian generals) to retire from the island. Both Philometor and Antiochus afterwards sent flattering and complimentary messages to the Senate (Livy xlv. 13). Thus ended Antiochus' third expedition into Egypt.

For the subsequent years of Antiochus' reign, see on xi. 40.