gentle, feeling woman. We can trace nothing, in this lowly adherence to a penitential vow, and devotion to the interests of a miserable people, resembling the gay life, and pleasure-loving propensities of a professed and alluring beauty. Josephus, indeed, accuses her of the unamiable qualities of annoying and ill-treating her youngest sister, Drusilla, on account of her extraordinary beauty: but that this charge must have been made without either foundation or reflection on the part of the historian, is very clear from his own recital. The beauty and influence of Berenice had been long known and widely acknowledged. She had neither occasion, nor probably inclination, to envy her sister the gifts she herself possessed. But the very manner in which Josephus writes the charge, shows its fallacy. Drusilla was already married to Aziz, king of Emesa, who had consented to embrace the Jewish religion to obtain her. When Felix was procurator of Judea, he saw Drusilla, and fell madly in love with her. Through the means of a Cypriot Jew, he persuaded her to forsake her husband Aziz, and marry him. "Accordingly, she acted ill; and because she was desirous to avoid her sister Berenice's envy-for she was very ill-treated by her on account of her beauty -was prevailed upon to transgress the laws of her country, and marry Felix." Now it appears to me, that Berenice's envy (even granted she had to encounter it) had nothing whatever to do with this decision. The representations of the Cypriot, the seductive persuasions of Felix, and her own inclinations, were the sole incentives; for she certainly was not a whit more protected from her sister's envy as the wife of Felix, than she had been as the wife of Aziz: nay, scarcely as much; for, when united

to Felix, she was continually liable to be thrown in Berenice's way, both in Jerusalem and Rome; and this could not have been the case when residing in her first husband's kingdom of Emesa. This charge, then, against Berenice has no foundation in reason; but most probably originated in Josephus's great wish to conciliate the Romans, even while he appeared to be writing an impartial history of his own country. Had he been straightforward, we should have found some condemnation of Drusilla for marrying a heathen, and forsaking, without any just cause, her former husband. But as the heathen was a Roman, he passes over the transgression very lightly; and, instead of blaming Drusilla for conduct which was undoubtedly evil, absolves her at the expense of her sister, who had probably no more to do with it than he had himself. And this is the justice of historians! Surely we should examine well, ere we permit the youthful mind to embrace their views as infallible; and rather encourage them to reflect, and have an opinion of their own, instead of blindly swallowing the food which historians provide.

That Berenice should sometimes be regarded as the sister, and sometimes as the wife of Agrippa, does not at all surprise us, for some historians actually call her his wife.* What foundation they have for this assertion, however, we should be glad to know. Certainly, Josephus must be to them an unknown authority; for he shews her parentage and connections somewhat too clearly for this idea to originate with him. The mistake of the moderns, and the false scandalous reports of the ancients, may however arise from the same causes. We

* Jahn's Hebrew Commonwealth.

have already shewn the close tie uniting Jewish brothers and sisters of nearly the same age; that Agrippa and Berenice were always associated in the thoughts, and even the will of their father. As Herod's wife, and queen of Chalcis, Berenice was more continually in Jerusalem, and learning lessons of government rather from her father than her brother, who was then at Rome. Herod, though king of Chalcis, almost constantly resided in Jerusalem; and during the minority of the young Agrippa, obtained the sovereignty over the Temple, and the privilege of nominating the high priest. Berenice was, therefore, actually queen over the Jews, at that time, as well as of Chalcis; and the former people were accustomed to regard and feel towards her, as, with her husband, the representative of royalty.

When Herod died, his kingdom of Chalcis, over which Berenice was still queen, was given to Agrippa, and the brother and sister were, in consequence, again thrown so closely together, that as Agrippa had no wife, they were always alluded to, and spoken of as king and queen. As the daughter, sister, and widow of kings accustomed too, to share in the government, and influence the people, she was always spoken of as Queen Berenice, and queen of Chalcis, over which country Agrippa was also king. And mere casual readers are therefore likely to consider her as the wife of the king, not knowing how, as his sister, she could have had any right to the title. Acting in concert with Agrippa, as their early education had accustomed them to do, we see her, as in the affair of Florus and Agrippa's address to the people, occupying that position which not generally devolving on the sisters of royalty, confirms the supposi

tion of a nearer connection. But the supposition falls to the ground before the simple facts we have brought forward. Berenice was, in fact, a more independent sovereign of Judea, or rather of a remnant of the Jewish people, than her brother; for him the Romans feared, lest by placing regal power in his hands, their own power over Judea would be diminished. Berenice

as a woman, and the wife of a king of Chalcis, was to them a mere cypher with regard to the state, however admired as a beautiful woman in Rome; but the interest she really did take in the affairs of the people, we perceive, by her conduct during the administration of Florus.

We have read and reflected on the subject deeply; but though we see much which might be perverted into the rumour to which we have alluded, a consideration of facts proves its utter want of solid foundation. Our authorities are, however, open to all readers, and they are at liberty to adopt their own opinions. We would only entreat them to reflect on the facts here brought forward under their view, as likely to assist them in their decision--to accustom themselves to reason from analogy, as well as to exercise understanding, which is too often thought sufficient in itself for the comprehension of history. We are too far removed from the time in which Berenice lived, to pronounce judgment decidedly for or against her; but when not a single instance is brought forward to make manifest impropriety of conduct, and all that is clearly related of her proves a religious, national, and feeling character-when her defamers are Roman satirists, and Roman historians, for whose dislike it was enough that she was a Jewess—

when the pages of her own historian are but too often tarnished with crooked views, partial representation, and Roman feelings, why should we not be permitted to judge charitably as well as harshly? to doubt as well as believe? Her character is, indeed, not written with sufficient clearness for us to draw thence a lesson; but our history of the women of Israel would scarcely have been complete had we omitted her, more especially as her history practically illustrates a law of our state, and demonstrates convincingly that even in that period of spiritual and moral darkness, not a statute existed which could contradict the written law of Moses, by a refusal to women of those spiritual privileges, and that solemn responsibility, therein so forcibly inculcated.