So Cæsar bestowed upon Herod the territory of Zenodorus, an extensive region lying between Trachonitis and Galilee (and embracing) Ulatha and Paneas[116] and the neighbouring country. He attached it[117] to the province of Syria, but instructed the provincial governors to do nothing without obtaining Herod’s approval. In short, he reached such a height of prosperity that, whereas the burden of government of the vast Roman Empire rested upon two men, first Cæsar, and then (as Cæsar’s favourite) Agrippa, Cæsar preferred no one to Herod after Agrippa, and Agrippa made Herod his chief friend after Cæsar.—_Ant._ XV. 10. 1 and 3 (342 f.; 360 f.). Footnote 112: The building of Cæsarea and its harbour, etc. Footnote 113: Herod’s new name for Samaria. Footnote 114: Augustus. Footnote 115: Lit. “Trachon.” The three districts correspond approximately to Bashan of the O.T. Footnote 116: Ulatha and Paneas N. and N.E. of the Waters of Merom. Footnote 117: Text (Niese) uncertain. Most MSS “him”; lit. “mixed him with (? = ‘put him on a level with’) the governors of Syria.” (19) The Historian’s Reading of Herod’s Character It is usual to remark with astonishment on the inconsistency of Herod’s character. When we have regard to his munificent actions and the benefits which he conferred on the world at large, even one who is not among his warm admirers[118] cannot deny that he was by nature supremely beneficent. If, on the other hand, one looks at the penalties inflicted and the wrongs done by him to his subjects and nearest relations, and takes note of his harsh and unrelenting disposition, one will be forced to the conclusion that he was of a brutal nature and an alien to all humanity.[119] Hence the common opinion that his character was, as it were, a compound of conflicting and antagonistic elements. I do not share this opinion; my view is that both these sides of his character had one and the same cause. He was ambitious, indeed an abject slave to that passion; and where there appeared any promise of posthumous fame or present reputation, he might even attain magnanimity. But, since his expenditure outran his means, necessity drove him to be cruel to his subjects. His lavish bounty to his beneficiaries forced him to procure his supplies by criminal methods[120] from his victims. He was conscious that his subjects hated him for the wrongs which he did them, but found it no easy matter to atone for his sins without loss to his exchequer. Instead he fought his opponents, converting even their disaffection into a source of revenue. As for his nearest and dearest, if any one omitted to address him in obsequious language and to display a subservient attitude, or was suspected of plotting against the realm, he was incapable of self-control and punished relatives and friends alike, one after another, as though they were open enemies; to such crimes was he driven by his desire that honour should be paid to himself alone.