of goodness: seeking for opportunities to make manifest the one, we overlook the innumerable opportunities in our daily life to prove the other. The one lives but in excitement, the other at home; and modern women must be content to exchange the one for the other, or their lives must be unhappy; for in these matter-of-fact prosaic days, where shall we find adventures to make us feel and act as heroines?

Not to call forth romantic admiration, have we brought this incident forward, but simply to prove that, in time of need, Israel as well as every other nation had her great and noble-minded heroines. Qualities such as the mother of Hyrcanus displayed, are the offspring of freedom only. The affection, the reverence borne her by her son, deprived him of his wonted energy, unnerved his heart, and bade his sword lie powerless. This marks the distinction between a heroine of Israel, and a heroine of savages: even amongst the latter we may find the heroism of endurance, but not the filial affection, which would pause in the midst of a triumphant career, appalled and powerless, because a mother suffered. The affection of Hyrcanus is even a more convincing proof of the elevation to which the woman of Israel could attain, than her own fortitude; while her address, and its inspiring effect must convince us, that the men of Israel disdained not to derive increase of courage and of firmness from a woman's lips; and would this, could this be, if it were the mandate of their law to degrade and to enslave her?

A still more powerful proof of the perfect equality of the women in Israel, in the eyes of their husbands, and

of all the people, is the curious and important fact, that more than one sovereign of Israel left his kingdom to his WIFE. Now this is a custom, or even an instance. found in the annals of no other nation, except in the Semiramis of Babylon, and the Catharine of Russia; and these became queens, less from the will of their husbands than their own successful ambition. Whereas in Israel, it never appeared to excite surprise, even though the turbulence of the people or the rebellion of sons, prevented the actual government of a queen, except in one instance.

That the wife of John Hyrcanus should have had such a monster for her son as Aristobulus the First was her misfortune; but his violently depriving her of the authority which his father had left her, does not at all interfere with the bequeathment itself, or lessen the importance of the facts derived from that bequeathment. Josephus tells us, speaking of Aristobulus, and of his ambitious design of changing the government into a kingdom, "He also cast his mother into prison, because she disputed the government with him; for Hyrcanus had left her to be mistress of all. He also proceeded to that degree of barbarity, as to kill her in prison with hunger." The extreme cruelty of his conduct, marks his fear of her influence, and the people's support of her authority. That Hyrcanus left her to be "mistress of all" very forcibly proves the high esteem in which he must have held her, even if that bequeathment devolved on her an office, which it was impossible for her sex to hold, that of High Priest. We are, rather to suppose that he left to her judgment, which he had no doubt previously well proved, the choice of a successor for

that office from amongst his sons, and the rest of the administration to be retained by her. Had she been unfitted by insufficient mental ability, for the retention of this high and responsible office, Aristobulus need not have proceeded to extremities. Whereas we read her capability, influence, and authority, in the awful measures which this monster of barbarity adopted. Far happier would it have been for her to have occupied a domestic station in Israel; but her story is a strong confirmation of all we have advanced.

Already had the opposing factions of traditionists and anti-traditionists appeared in Judea. The former, under the name of the Pharisees, insisted that the observances which they had handed down to the people, though not written in the Law of Moses, were equally obligatory. The latter, under the cognomen of Saducees, rejected them as obligatory, and adhered only to the written Law. We only mention this important fact, to add weight to our argument, that neither traditional nor written Judaism could authorise the abasement of women either socially or domestic, as we shall find the Pharisees giving all their powerful support to a female's authority, which could hardly have been, if tradition forbade her to assume it.

The death of Aristobulus, who had succeeded in changing the government into a kingdom, left the nation without an acknowledged head. Antigonus, the next brother to Aristobulus, had been murdered by his orders, and his three other brothers retained in prison. One might suppose that the nobility of the nation would at once have proceeded to action in the choice of a sovereign; but we find a woman acting for them,

Salome, the wife of Aristobulus, instead of retaining the regal dignity herself, which it is very evident she might have done, chose the wiser course of acting. We do not read of her taking council with any one; but, entirely by her own will and pleasure, and on her own authority, she released her husband's brethren from prison, and made Alexander Jannæus king. Her individual power and authority must undoubtedly have been great, or she could not have thus acted. Nor could she have been an ambitious woman: but we do not hold her forth as a good or amiable character, so little being reported of her; and that little, if we are to believe the words of Josephus, not in her favour. Her independent anthority and undisputed influence are all we need, as evidences of the freedom and equality of her social state.

The reign of Alexander Jannæus lasted twenty-seven years, varied by foreign wars and domestic seditions. A fearful vengeance on his disaffected subjects in Jerusalem, however, produced peace; and, for the remainder of his reign, his iron rule retained them in subjection. His foreign policy had been equally successful; and many conquered provinces were added to his hereditary possessions. When, however, he was seized by a mortal malady, three years after his subjection of the insurgents, he trembled for the fate of his kingdom. A turbulent and angry people, and provinces so newly conquered, were little likely to submit to the rule of women and children. Yet still we do not perceive any change in his resolution, founded on the customs of his country, to leave his kingdom to his wife.

Instead of taking counsel, we find him summoning his wife Alexandra to his bedside, and giving such advice

as forcibly manifests her power to follow it. Even granting that he did not say the exact words which Jesephus puts into his mouth, yet the Hebrew woman must have been quite capable of undertaking the solemn responsibility, and of accomplishing all he desired, or Josephus himself, well acquainted with the customs and habits of the strict Jews, would not have had the veracity of his narrative doubted, by giving her instructions which a fettered position must have entirely prevented her fulfilling.

Fully aware of the desolate and painful position in which she and her children would be left by the death of her husband-" She came to him," as Josephus says,

66

weeping and lamenting;" but Alexander roused himself from the stupor of his mortal illness to give such advice as would secure the kingdom to her and tranquillity to the people. He bade her conceal his death from his soldiers till the fortress (Ragabah, near Jordan), which he was besieging, had been subdued; and then to march to Jerusalem in triumph, place his body in the hands of the Pharisees, whom he had so mortally offended during his life, to do with as they pleased, and promise to conduct the affairs of government under their advice and approbation. "If thou dost but say this to them," Josephus makes him continue, "I shall have the honour of a more. glorious funeral from them than thou couldst have made for me; and when it is in their power to abuse my dead body they will do it no injury at all, and thou wilt rule in safety."

And his wise policy was followed. That he should have given such to his wife must suppose a perfect conviction on his part that her sex would be no hinderance