[See page image]

Page 343

for a new essay at power. Demetrius II. Nicator (145-138, 128-124) was practically maintained on the throne by the Cretan mercenaries, of evil fame, who had assisted to place him there, who, with Jewish contingents, rioted in Antioch and boasted of the slaughter of the gentiles wrought there. Tryphon, one of the generals of Balas, disputed the reign of Nicator, setting up Antiochus VI. Theos Epiphanes Dionysus (145-?), son of Alexander Bales, in Antioch while Demetrius ruled in Seleucia. The gains of the Jews seemed dangerous to Tryphon, and he treacherously captured Jonathan the Maccabee and slew him, hoping thus to leave the Jews without a leader and at his mercy. This alienated the Jews under the unexpected leadership of Simon, who espoused the cause of Demetrius. About 143142 Tryphon had the young Antiochus assassinated and himself aspired to the throne, hoping to found a new dynasty. About 140 Demetrius determined upon a campaign in the East to recover that region from the Parthians; but he was captured by them (138) and held a close prisoner. This seemed to leave Tryphon a clear field. But Antiochus VII. Sidetes (138-128), younger son of Demetrius I., had grown up in Side of Pamphylia. When his brother was captured in Parthia, he entered Seleucia as the rightful king, and in the presence of a Seleucid the backing of Tryphon fell away while he was himself captured and forced to commit suicide. During the reign of Sidetes the genius of the Seleucids shone out with a dying gleam. The gains of the Jews had been enormous through the bidding of rival claimants to the Syrian throne and their own seizure of opportunities. They had gained territory never before in possession of Hebrews. Sidetes demanded indemnity for their conquests, which Simon attempted to meet with commercial bargaining. In 134 Sidetes sent an army which besieged Jerusalem and Put the Jews in a humbler frame of mind, yet without raising fanatical opposition. He then set out for Parthia to recover the East and release his brother. Successful at first, in the end he was defeated and slain. Meanwhile, in the earlier stages of the conflict the Parthian king had released Demetrius, and later attempted to recapture him. The latter, having regained Syria, attempted the conquest of Egypt to restore his mother-in-law Cleopatra against Ptolemy Euergetes. But he was checked at Pelusium, while Syria revolted against him as soon as he left, Alexander Zabinas (129-122) being put forth as a pretender by Euergetes; Demetrius was defeated, became a fugitive, and fell at Tyre. Under Cleopatra, daughter of Ptolemy Philopator, the struggle went on between the house of Seleucus and Alexander. Seleucus V. (12r124), son of Nicator, was assassinated, possibly by order of Cleopatra, while his brother, Antiochus VIII. Grypos (12r124-113; 111-96) defeated Zabinas and ended his reign. Cleopatra then attempted to poison him but was caught in her own device (121?). Grypos amused himself with feasts, until Antiochus I%. Cyzicenus (113-95), his half-brother, assailed him and compelled him temporarily to withdraw (113); but two years later he returned and recovered all but Coele-Syria, which Cyzicenus held. The rival kings died within a year

of each other, both probably by violent deaths; then the sons of Grypos (Seleucus VL, Antiochus ZL, Philip, Demetrius III. Eucarus, and Antiochus %IL) fought with the son of Cyzicenus (Antiochus %. Eusebes). In the mfil6e Tigranes of Armenia captured the kingdom and held it (8369), but in 69 the Roman Lucullus permitted Antiochus RIH. Asiaticus to sit on the throne. In 65 Pompey made Syria a Roman province.

GEo. W. GILMORE.

BIBLIOGniPET: As sources recourse should be had to CIG and CIS, C. Michel, Recueil d'inscriptions precques, Paris, 1900; to the historical works of Polybius, Appian, Strabo, the younger Pliny (Hist. naturalis), Isidore (Stathmoi Par ehikoi), the Chronicorum libri duo of Eusebius (which con tains some sources otherwise lost); and from the Jewish side the Antiquities and War of Josephus, and I and II Maccabees. For the English reader a splendid work is available in E. R. Bevan, House of Seleucus, 2 vols., London, 1902. Of singular value for completeness and exactness are: J. G. Droysen, Geschichte des Hellmismus, 2 vols., Hamburg, 1836-43; B. Niese, Geschichte der priechischen and makedoniachen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chdronea, 3 parts, Gotha, 1893-1903. Other literature bearing on the subject is: L. Flathe, Geschichte Macedoniens and der Reiche welche von makedonischen BBnipen beherracht wurden, vol. if., Leipaie, 1834; H. F. Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, pp. 310-350, Oxford, 1851; A. P. Stanley, Hist. of the Jewish Church, pp. 285-396, London, 1877; E. Babelon, Catalogue des monnaies precques. Les Rois de Syrie, d'Armlnie, et de Commagene, Paris, 1890; A. Kuhn, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Seleukiden . . . 1,29 164, Altkireh, 1891; F. Susemihl, Geschichte der Oriechisehen Litteratur in der Atexandrinerzeit, 2 vols., Leipsie, 1891-92 (gives excellent sidelights); A. Holm, Griechische Geschichte, vol. iv., Berlin, 1894, Eng. tranal., Hid. of Greece, vol. iv., London, 1898 (comprehensive); H. Willrieh, Juden and Griechen vor der makkabdischen Erhebunp, GSttingen, 1895; J. P. Mahaffy, Greek Life and Thought. London, 1896; S. Mathews, Hist. of New Testament Times in Palestine, chaps. i.-vi., new ed., New York, 1910; G. Hoelscher, Paldstina in der persischen and hellenistischen Zeit, Berlin, 1903; P. Barry, in JBL, xxix (1910), 126-138; SehOrer, Geschichte, i. 166 sqq., Eng. transl., I., i. 169 aqq. For the Jewish side use may be made of the literature on the period indicated under ABA.B, and ISRAEL, HISTORY or (some exact references will be found to this literature in C. F. Kent, Hist. ofJewiah People, p. 367, New York, 1899); and of the later commentaries on Daniel and on I and II Maccabees. The history of Egypt and Syria so interlaced during this period that the literature given under PToraas: will be found illuminative for the most part.

SELF-DEFENSE: A term of jurisprudence, politics, and ethics, requiring a different treatment in each. In law it is an act which has the outward form of a penal offense, but instead of being penal it is permissible and justifiable-a defense which is requisite in order to ward off an illegal attack of which there is immediate danger. The danger may be of loss of life, bodily injury, or injury to honor or property. The defense may go to the length of killing the aggressor, even without respect to the value of the good that is threatened; but excess beyond a reasonable measure of defense involves guilt, though not penal, in view of the alarm caused in the one threatened. In the political field the question of self-defense assumes importance in deciding the justification of war or revolution. In a thoughtful discussion of the question (Ethik, II., ii. 265 sqq.) Hans Lassen Martensen is inclined to justify revolutions of a national character, such as the revolt of the Low Countries against Spanish domination, as cases in which a nation is defending its life.