HISTORY OF P H ΠN I C I A

by GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A.



First Published 1889 by Longmans, Green, and Co.



Camden Professor of Ancient History in the University of Oxford
Canon of Canterbury
Corresponding Member of the Royal Academy of Turin




TO THE

CHANCELLOR, VICE-CHANCELLOR, and SCHOLARS
Of The
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
This Work
His Last as Occupant of a Professorial Chair
Is Dedicated
As a Token of Respect and Gratitude
By The
CAMDEN PROFESSOR
Oct. 1
MDCCCLXXXIX



PREPARER'S NOTE

  The original text contains a number of characters that are not
  available even in 8-bit Windows text. Where possible these have
  been represented with a similar letter, but some things, e.g.
  Hebrew script, have been omitted.

  The 8-bit version of this text includes Windows font characters.
  These may be lost in 7-bit versions of the text, or when viewed
  with different fonts.

  Greek text has been transliterated within brackets "{}" using an
  Oxford English Dictionary alphabet table. Diacritical marks have
  been lost. Phœnician or other Semitic text has been replaced with
  an ellipsis in brackets, i.e. "{...}".

  The numerous sketches and maps in the original have also been
  omitted.



PREFACE

Histories of Phœnicia or of the Phœnicians were written towards the
middle of the present century by Movers and Kenrick. The elaborate
work of the former writer[1] collected into five moderate-sized
volumes all the notices that classical antiquity had preserved of the
Religion, History, Commerce, Art, &c., of this celebrated and
interesting nation. Kenrick, making a free use of the stores of
knowledge thus accumulated, added to them much information derived
from modern research, and was content to give to the world in a single
volume of small size,[2] very scantily illustrated, the ascertained
results of criticism and inquiry on the subject of the Phœnicians up
to his own day. Forty-four years have since elapsed; and in the course
of them large additions have been made to certain branches of the
inquiry, while others have remained very much as they were before.
Travellers, like Robinson, Walpole, Tristram, Renan, and Lortet, have
thrown great additional light on the geography, geology, fauna, and
flora of the country. Excavators, like Renan and the two Di Cesnolas,
have caused the soil to yield up most valuable remains bearing upon
the architecture, the art, the industrial pursuits, and the manners
and customs of the people. Antiquaries, like M. Clermont-Ganneau and
MM. Perrot and Chipiez, have subjected the remains to careful
examination and criticism, and have definitively fixed the character
of Phœnician Art, and its position in the history of artistic effort.
Researches are still being carried on, both in Phœnicia Proper and in
the Phœnician dependency of Cyprus, which are likely still further to
enlarge our knowledge with respect to Phœnician Art and Archæology;
but it is not probable that they will affect seriously the verdict
already delivered by competent judges on those subjects. The time
therefore appeared to the author to have come when, after nearly half
a century of silence, the history of the people might appropriately be
rewritten. The subject had long engaged his thoughts, closely
connected as it is with the histories of Egypt, and of the "Great
Oriental Monarchies," which for thirty years have been to him special
objects of study; and a work embodying the chief results of the recent
investigations seemed to him a not unsuitable termination to the
historical efforts which his resignation of the Professorship of
Ancient History at Oxford, and his entrance upon a new sphere of
labour, bring naturally to an end.

The author wishes to express his vast obligations to MM. Perrot and
Chipiez for the invaluable assistance which he has derived from their
great work,[3] and to their publishers, the MM. Hachette, for their
liberality in allowing him the use of so large a number of MM. Perrot
and Chipiez' Illustrations. He is also much beholden to the same
gentlemen for the use of charts and drawings originally published in
the "Géographie Universelle." Other works from which he has drawn
either materials or illustrations, or both, are (besides Movers' and
Kenrick's) M. Ernest Renan's "Mission de Phénicie," General Di
Cesnola's "Cyprus," A. Di Cesnola's "Salaminia," M. Ceccaldi's
"Monuments Antiques de Cypre," M. Daux's "Recherches sur les Emporia
Phéniciens," the "Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum," M. Clermont-
Ganneau's "Imagerie Phénicienne," Mr. Davis's "Carthage and her
Remains," Gesenius's "Scripturæ Linguæque Phœniciæ Monumenta,"
Lortet's "La Syrie d'aujourd'hui," Serra di Falco's "Antichità della
Sicilia," Walpole's "Ansayrii," and Canon Tristram's "Land of Israel."
The difficulty has been to select from these copious stores the most
salient and noteworthy facts, and to marshal them in such a form as
would make them readily intelligible to the ordinary English reader.
How far he has succeeded in doing this he must leave the public to
judge. In making his bow to them as a "Reader" and Writer "of
Histories,"[4] he has to thank them for a degree of favour which has
given a ready sale to all his previous works, and has carried some of
them through several editions.

CANTERBURY: August 1889.





HISTORY OF PHŒNICIA



CHAPTER I

THE LAND

  Phœnicia--Origin of the name--Spread of the name southwards--Real
  length of Phœnicia along the coast--Breadth and area--General
  character of the region--The Plains--Plain of Sharon--Plain of
  Acre--Plain of Tyre--Plain of Sidon--Plain of Berytus--Plain of
  Marathus--Hilly regions--Mountain ranges--Carmel--Casius--Bargylus
  --Lebanon--Beauty of Lebanon--Rivers--The Litany--The Nahr-el-
  Berid--The Kadisha--The Adonis--The Lycus--The Tamyras--The
  Bostrenus--The Zaherany--The Headlands--Main characteristics,
  inaccessibility, picturesqueness, productiveness.

Phœnicé, or Phœnicia, was the name originally given by the Greeks--and
afterwards adopted from them by the Romans--to the coast region of the
Mediterranean, where it faces the west between the thirty-second and
the thirty-sixth parallels. Here, it would seem, in their early
voyagings, the Pre-Homeric Greeks first came upon a land where the
palm-tree was not only indigenous, but formed a leading and striking
characteristic, everywhere along the low sandy shore lifting its tuft
of feathery leaves into the bright blue sky, high above the
undergrowth of fig, and pomegranate, and alive. Hence they called the
tract Phœnicia, or "the Land of Palms;" and the people who inhabited
it the Phœnicians, or "the Palm-tree people."

The term was from the first applied with a good deal of vagueness. It
was probably originally given to the region opposite Cyprus, from
Gabala in the north--now Jebili--to Antaradus (Tortosa) and Marathus
(Amrith) towards the south, where the palm-tree was first seen growing
in rich abundance. The palm is the numismatic emblem of Aradus,[1] and
though not now very frequent in the region which Strabo calls "the
Aradian coast-tract,"[2] must anciently have been among its chief
ornaments. As the Grecian knowledge of the coast extended southward,
and a richer and still richer growth of the palm was continually
noticed, almost every town and every village being embosomed in a
circle of palm groves, the name extended itself until it reached as
far south at any rate as Gaza, or (according to some) as Rhinocolura
and the Torrens Ægypti. Northward the name seems never to have passed
beyond Cape Posideium (Possidi) at the foot of Mount Casius, the tract
between this and the range of Taurus being always known as Syria,
never as Phœnecia or Phœnicé.

The entire length of the coast between the limits of Cape Possidi and
Rhinocolura is, without reckoning the lesser indentations, about 380
miles, or nearly the same as that of Portugal. The indentations of the
coast-line are slight. From Rhinocolura to Mount Carmel, a distance of
150 miles, not a single strong promontory asserts itself, nor is there
a single bay of sufficient depth to attract the attention of
geographers. Carmel itself is a notable headland, and shelters a bay
of some size; but these once passed the old uniformity returns, the
line being again almost unbroken for a distance of seventy-five miles,
from Haifa to Beyrout (Berytus). North of Beyrout we find a little
more variety. The coast projects in a tolerably bold sweep between the
thirty-fourth parallel and Tripolis (Tarabulus) and recedes almost
correspondingly between Tripolis and Tortosa (Antaradus), so that a
deepish bay is formed between Lat. 34º 27´ and Lat. 34º 45´, whence
the line again runs northward unindented for fifty miles, to beyond
Gabala (Jebili). After this, between Gabala and Cape Posideium there
is considerable irregularity, the whole tract being mountainous, and
spurs from Bargylus and Casius running down into the sea and forming a
succession of headlands, of which Cape Posideium is the most
remarkable.

But while the name Phœnicia is applied geographically to this long
extent--nearly 400 miles--of coast-line, historically and ethnically
it has to be reduced within considerably narrower limits. A race,
quite distinct from that of the Phœnicians, was settled from an early
date on the southern portion of the west Asian coast, where it verges
towards Africa. From Jabneh (Yebna) southwards was Palestine, the
country of the Philistines, perhaps even from Joppa (Jaffa), which is
made the boundary by Mela.[3] Thus at least eighty miles of coast-line
must be deducted from the 380, and the length of Phœnicia along the
Mediterranean shore must be regarded as not exceeding three hundred
miles.

The width varied from eight or ten miles to thirty. We must regard as
the eastern boundary of Phœnicia the high ridge which forms the
watershed between the streams that flow eastward toward the Orontes,
Litany, and Jordan, and those that flow westward into the
Mediterranean. It is difficult to say what was the /average/ width,
but perhaps it may be fairly estimated at about fifteen miles. In this
case the entire area would have been about 4,500 square miles.

The tract was one of a remarkably diversified character. Lofty
mountain, steep wooded hill, chalky slope, rich alluvial plain, and
sandy shore succeeded each other, each having its own charm, which was
enhanced by contrast. The sand is confined to a comparatively narrow
strip along the seashore,[4] and to the sites of ancient harbours now
filled up. It is exceedingly fine and of excellent silicious quality,
especially in the vicinity of Sidon and at the foot of Mount Carmel.
The most remarkable plains are those of Sharon, Acre, Tyre, Sidon,
Beyrout, and Marathus. Sharon, so dear to the Hebrew poets,[5] is the
maritime tract intervening between the highland of Samaria and the
Mediterranean, extending from Joppa to the southern foot of Carmel--a
distance of nearly sixty miles--and watered by the Chorseas, the
Kaneh, and other rivers. It is a smooth, very slightly undulating
tract, about ten miles in width from the sea to the foot of the
mountains, which rise up abruptly from it without any intervening
region of hills, and seem to bound it as a wall, above which tower the
huge rounded masses of Ebal and Gerizim, with the wooded cone, on
which stood Samaria, nestling at their feet.[6] The sluggish streams,
several of them containing water during the whole of the year, make
their way across it between reedy banks,[7] and generally spread out
before reaching the shore into wide marshes, which might be easily
utilised for purposes of irrigation. The soil is extremely rich,
varying from bright red to deep black, and producing enormous crops of
weeds or grain, according as it is cultivated or left in a state of
nature. Towards the south the view over the region has been thus
described: "From Ramleh there is a wide view on every side, presenting
a prospect rarely surpassed in richness and beauty. I could liken it
to nothing but the great plain of the Rhine by Heidelberg or, better
still, to the vast plains of Lombardy, as seen from the cathedral of
Milan and elsewhere. In the east the frowning mountains of Judah rose
abruptly from the tract at their foot; while on the west, in fine
contrast, the glittering waves of the Mediterranean Sea associated our
thoughts with Europe. Towards the north and south, as far as the eye
could reach, the beautiful plain was spread out like a carpet at our
feet, variegated with tracts of brown from which the crops had just
been taken, and with fields still rich with the yellow of the ripe
corn, or green with the springing millet. Immediately below us the eye
rested on the immense olive groves of Ramleh and Lydda, and the
picturesque towers and minarets and domes of these large villages. In
the plain itself were not many villages, but the tract of hills and
the mountain-side beyond, especially in the north-east, were perfectly
studded with them, and as now seen in the reflected beams of the
setting sun they seemed like white villas and hamlets among the dark
hills, presenting an appearance of thriftiness and beauty which
certainly would not stand a closer examination."[8] Towards its
northern end Sharon is narrowed by the low hills which gather round
the western flanks of Carmel, and gradually encroach upon the plain
until it terminates against the shoulder of the mountain itself,
leaving only a narrow beach at the foot of the promontory by which it
is possible to communicate with the next plain towards the north.[9]

Compared with Sharon the plain of Acre is unimportant and of small
extent. It reaches about eight miles along the shore, from the foot of
Carmel to the headland on which the town of Acre stands, and has a
width between the shore and the hills of about six miles. Like Sharon
it is noted for its fertility. Watered by the two permanent streams of
the Kishon and the Belus, it possesses a rich soil, which is said to
be at present "perhaps the best cultivated and producing the most
luxuriant crops, both of corn and weeds, of any in Palestine."[10] The
Kishon waters it on the south, where it approaches Carmel, and is a
broad stream,[11] though easily fordable towards its mouth. The Belus
(Namâané) flows through it towards the north, washing Acre itself, and
is a stream of even greater volume than the Kishon, though it has but
a short course.

The third of the Phœnician plains, as we proceed from south to north,
is that of Tyre. This is a long but comparatively narrow strip,
reaching from the Ras-el-Abiad towards the south to Sarepta on the
north, a distance of about twenty miles, but in no part more than five
miles across, and generally less than two miles. It is watered about
midway by the copious stream of the Kasimiyeh or Litany, which, rising
east of Lebanon in the Buka'a or Cœlesyrian valley, forces its way
through the mountain chain by a series of tremendous gorges, and
debouches upon the Tyrian lowland about three miles to the south-east
of the present city, near the modern Khan-el-Kasimiyeh, whence it
flows peaceably to the sea with many windings through a broad low
tract of meadow-land. Other rills and rivulets descending from the
west flank of the great mountain increase the productiveness of the
plain, while copious fountains of water gush forth with surprising
force in places, more especially at Ras-el-Ain, three miles from Tyre,
to the south.[12] The plain is, even at the present day, to a large
extent covered with orchards, gardens, and cultivated fields, in which
are grown rich crops of tobacco, cotton, and cereals.

The plain of Sidon, which follows that of Tyre, and is sometimes
regarded as a part of it,[13] extends from a little north of Sarepta
to the Ras-el-Jajunieh, a distance of about ten miles, and resembles
that of Tyre in its principal features. It is long and narrow, never
more than about two miles in width, but well-watered and very fertile.
The principal streams are the Bostrenus (Nahr-el-Auly) in the north,
just inside the promontory of Jajunieh, the Nahr-Sanîk, south of
Sidon, a torrent dry in the summer-time,[14] and the Nahr-ez-Zaherany,
two and a half miles north of Sarepta, a river of moderate capacity.
Fine fountains also burst from the earth in the plain itself, as the
Ain-el-Kanterah and the Ain-el-Burâk,[15] between Sarepta and the
Zaherany river. Irrigation is easy and is largely used, with the
result that the fruits and vegetables of Saïda and its environs have
the name of being among the finest of the country.[16]

The plain of Berytus (Beyrout) is the most contracted of all the
Phœnician plains that are at all noticeable. It lies south, south-
east, and east of the city, intervening between the high dunes or
sand-hills which form the western portion of the Beyrout peninsula,
and the skirts of Lebanon, which here approach very near to the sea.
The plain begins at Wady Shuweifat on the south, about four miles from
the town of Beyrout, and extends northwards to the sea on the western
side of the Nahr Beyrout. The northern part of the plain is known as
Ard-el-Burâjineh. The plain is deficient in water,[17] yet is
cultivated in olives and mulberries, and contains the largest olive
grove in all Syria. A little beyond its western edge is the famous
pine forest[18] from which (according to some) Berytus derived its
name.[19]

The plain of Marathus is, next to Sharon, the most extensive in
Phœnicia. It stretches from Jebili (Gabala) on the north to Arka
towards the south, a distance of about sixty miles, and has a width
varying from two to ten miles. The rock crops out from it in places
and it is broken between Tortosa and Hammam by a line of low hills
running parallel with the shore.[20] The principal streams which water
it are the Nahr-el-Melk, or Badas, six miles south of Jebili, the Nahr
Amrith, a strong running brook which empties itself into the sea a few
miles south of Tortosa (Antaradus), the Nahr Kublé, which joins the
Nahr Amrith near its mouth, and the Eleutherus or Nahr-el-Kabir, which
reaches the sea a little north of Arka. Of these the Eleutherus is the
most important. "It is a considerable stream even in summer, and in
the rainy season it is a barrier to intercourse, caravans sometimes
remaining encamped on its banks for several weeks, unable to
cross."[21] The soil of the plain is shallow, the rock lying always
near the surface; the streams are allowed to run to waste and form
marshes, which breed malaria; a scanty population scarcely attempts
more than the rudest and most inefficient cultivation; and the
consequence is that the tract at present is almost a desert. Nature,
however, shows its capabilities by covering it in the spring-time from
end to end with a "carpet of flowers."[22]

From the edges of the plains, and sometimes from the very shore of the
sea, rise up chalky slopes or steep rounded hills, partly left to
nature and covered with trees and shrubs, partly at the present day
cultivated and studded with villages. The hilly region forms generally
an intermediate tract between the high mountains and the plains
already described; but, not unfrequently, it commences at the water's
edge, and fills with its undulations the entire space, leaving not
even a strip of lowland. This is especially the case in the central
region between Berytus and Arka, opposite the highest portion of the
Lebanon; and again in the north between Cape Possidi and Jebili,
opposite the more northern part of Bargylus. The hilly region in these
places is a broad tract of alternate wooded heights and deep romantic
valleys, with streams murmuring amid their shades. Sometimes the hills
are cultivated in terraces, on which grow vines and olives, but more
often they remain in their pristine condition, clothed with masses of
tangled underwood.

The mountain ranges, which belong in some measure to the geography of
Phœnicia, are four in number--Carmel, Casius, Bargylus, and Lebanon.
Carmel is a long hog-backed ridge, running in almost a straight line
from north-west to south-east, from the promontory which forms the
western protection of the bay of Acre to El-Ledjun, on the southern
verge of the great plain of Esdraelon, a distance of about twenty-two
miles. It is a limestone formation, and rises up abruptly from the
side of the bay of Acre, with flanks so steep and rugged that the
traveller must dismount in order to ascend them,[23] but slopes more
gently towards the south, where it is comparatively easy of access.
The greatest elevation which it attains is about Lat. 32º 4´, where it
reaches the height of rather more than 1,200 feet; from this it falls
gradually as it nears the shore, until at the convent, with which the
western extremity is crowned, the height above the sea is no more than
582 feet. In ancient times the whole mountain was thickly wooded,[24]
but at present, though it contains "rocky dells" where there are
"thick jungles of copse,"[25] and is covered in places with olive
groves and thickets of dwarf oak, yet its appearance is rather that of
a park than of a forest, long stretches of grass alternating with
patches of woodland and "shrubberies, thicker than any in Central
Palestine," while the larger trees grow in clumps or singly, and there
is nowhere, as in Lebanon, any dense growth, or even any considerable
grove, of forest trees. But the beauty of the tract is conspicuous;
and if Carmel means, as some interpret, a "garden" rather than a
"forest," it may be held to well justify its appellation. "The whole
mountain-side," says one traveller,[26] "was dressed with blossoms and
flowering shrubs and fragrant herbs." "There is not a flower," says
another,[27] "that I have seen in Galilee, or on the plains along the
coast, that I do not find on Carmel, still the fragrant, lovely
mountain that he was of old."

The geological structure of Carmel is, in the main, what is called
"the Jura formation," or "the upper oolite"--a soft white limestone,
with nodules and veins of flint. At the western extremity, where it
overhangs the Mediterranean, are found chalk, and tertiary breccia
formed of fragments of chalk and flint. On the north-east of the
mountain, beyond the Nahr-el-Mukattah, plutonic rocks appear, breaking
through the deposit strata, and forming the beginning of the basalt
formation which runs through the plain of Esdraelon to Tabor and the
Sea of Galilee.[28] Like most limestone formations, Carmel abounds in
caves, which are said to be more than 2,000 in number,[29] and are
often of great length and extremely tortuous.

Carmel, the great southern headland of Phœnicia, is balanced in a
certain sense by the extreme northern headland of Casius. Mount Casius
is, strictly speaking, the termination of a spur from Bargylus; but it
has so marked and peculiar a character that it seems entitled to
separate description. Rising up abruptly from the Mediterranean to the
height of 5,318 feet, it dominates the entire region in its vicinity,
and from the sea forms a landmark that is extraordinarily conspicuous.
Forests of fine trees clothe its flanks, but the lofty summit towers
high above them, a bare mass of rock, known at the present day as
Jebel-el-Akra, or "the Bald Mountain." It is formed mainly of the same
cretaceous limestone as the other mountains of these parts, and like
them has a rounded summit; but rocks of igneous origin enter into its
geological structure; and in its vegetation it more resembles the
mountain ranges of Taurus and Amanus than those of southern Syria and
Palestine. On its north-eastern prolongation, which is washed by the
Orontes, lay the enchanting pleasure-ground of Daphné, bubbling with
fountains, and bright with flowering shrubs, where from a remote
antiquity the Syrians held frequent festival to their favourite deity
--the "Dea Syra"--the great nature goddess.

The elevated tract known to the ancients as Bargylus, and to modern
geographers as the Ansayrieh or Nasariyeh mountain-region, runs at
right angles to the spur terminating in the Mount Casius, and extends
from the Orontes near Antioch to the valley of the Eleutherus. This is
a distance of not less than a hundred miles. The range forms the
western boundary of the lower Cœlesyrian valley, which abuts upon it
towards the east, while westward it looks down upon the region, partly
hill, partly lowland, which may be regarded as constituting "Northern
Phoenicia." The axis of the range is almost due north and south, but
with a slight deflection towards the south-east. Bargylus is not a
chain comparable to Lebanon, but still it is a romantic and
picturesque region. The lower spurs towards the west are clothed with
olive grounds and vineyards, or covered with myrtles and
rhododendrons; between them are broad open valleys, productive of
tobacco and corn. Higher up "the scenery becomes wild and bold; hill
rises to mountain; soft springing green corn gives place to sterner
crag, smooth plain to precipitous heights;"[30] and if in the more
elevated region the majesty of the cedar is wanting, yet forests of
fir and pine abound, and creep up the mountain-side, in places almost
to the summit, while here and there bare masses of rock protrude
themselves, and crag and cliff rise into the clouds that hang about
the highest summits. Water abounds throughout the region, which is the
parent of numerous streams, as the northern Nahr-el-Kebir, which flows
into the sea by Latakia, the Nahr-el-Melk, the Nahr Amrith, the Nahr
Kublé, the Nahr-el-Abrath, and many others. From the conformation of
the land they have of necessity short courses; but each and all of
them spread along their banks a rich verdure and an uncommon
fertility.

But the /great/ range of Phœnicia, its glory and its boast is Lebanon.
Lebanon, the "White Mountain"[31]--"the Mont Blanc of Palestine"[32]--
now known as "the Old White-headed Man" (Jebel-esh-Sheikh), or "the
Mountain of Ice" (Jebel-el-Tilj), was to Phœnicia at once its
protection, the source of its greatness, and its crowning beauty.
Extended in a continuous line for a distance of above a hundred miles,
with an average elevation of from 6,000 to 8,000 feet, and steepest on
its eastern side, it formed a wall against which the waves of eastern
invasion naturally broke--a bulwark which seemed to say to them, "Thus
far shall ye go, and no further." The flood of conquest swept along
its eastern flank, down the broad vale of the Buka'a, and then over
the hills of Galilee; but its frowning precipices and its lofty crest
deterred or baffled the invader, and the smiling region between its
summit and the Mediterranean was, in the early times at any rate, but
rarely traversed by a hostile army. This western region it was which
held those inexhaustible stores of forest trees that supplied Phœnicia
with her war ships and her immense commercial navy; here were the most
productive valleys, the vineyards, and the olive grounds, and here too
were the streams and rills, the dashing cascades, the lovely dells,
and the deep gorges which gave her the palm over all the surrounding
countries for variety of picturesque scenery.

The geology of the Lebanon is exceedingly complicated. "While the bulk
of the mountain, and all the higher ranges, are without exception
limestone of the early cretaceous period, the valleys and gorges are
filled with formations of every possible variety, sedimentary,
metamorphic, and igneous. Down many of them run long streams of trap
or basalt; occasionally there are dykes of porphyry and greenstone,
and then patches of sandstone, before the limestone and flint
recur."[33] Some slopes are composed entirely of soft sandstone; many
patches are of a hard metallic-sounding trap or porphyry; but the
predominant formation is a greasy or powdery limestone, bare often,
but sometimes clothed with a soft herbage, or with a thick tangle of
shrubs, or with lofty forest trees. The ridge of the mountain is
everywhere naked limestone rock, except in the comparatively few
places which attain the highest elevation, where it is coated or
streaked with snow. Two summits are especially remarkable, that of
Jebel Sunnin towards the south, which is a conspicuous object from
Beyrout,[34] and is estimated to exceed the height of 9,000 feet,[35]
and that of Jebel Mukhmel towards the north, which has been carefully
measured and found to fall a very little short of 10,200 feet.[36] The
latter, which forms a sort of amphitheatre, circles round and impends
over a deep hollow or basin, opening out towards the west, in which
rise the chief sources that go to form the romantic stream of the
Kadisha. The sides of the basin are bare and rocky, fringed here and
there with the rough knolls which mark the deposits of ancient
glaciers, the "moraines" of the Lebanon. In this basin stand "the
Cedars." It is not indeed true, as was for a long time supposed, that
the cedar grove of Jebel Mukhmel is the sole remnant of that primeval
cedar-forest which was anciently the glory of the mountain. Cedars
exist on Lebanon in six other places at least, if not in more. Near
Tannurin, on one of the feeders of the Duweir, a wild gorge is clothed
from top to bottom with a forest of trees, untouched by the axe, the
haunt of the panther and the bear, which on examination have been
found to be all cedars, some of a large size, from fifteen to eighteen
feet in girth. They grow in clusters, or scattered singly, in every
variety of situation, some clinging to the steep slopes, or gnarled
and twisted on the bare hilltops, others sheltered in the recesses of
the dell. There are also cedar-groves at B'sherrah; at El Hadith; near
Dûma, five hours south-west of El Hadith; in one of the glens north of
Deir-el-Kamar, at Etnub, and probably in other places.[37] But still
"the Cedars" of Jebel Mukhmel are entitled to pre-eminence over all
the rest, both as out-numbering any other cluster, and still more as
exceeding all the rest in size and apparent antiquity. Some of the
patriarchs are of enormous girth; even the younger ones have a
circumference of eighteen feet; and the height is such that the birds
which dwell among the upper branches are beyond the range of an
ordinary fowling-piece.

But it is through the contrasts which it presents that Lebanon has its
extraordinary power of attracting and delighting the traveller. Below
the upper line of bare and worn rock, streaked in places with snow,
and seamed with torrent courses, a region is entered upon where the
freshest and softest mountain herbage, the greenest foliage, and the
most brilliant flowers alternate with deep dells, tremendous gorges,
rocky ravines, and precipices a thousand feet high. Scarcely has the
voyager descended from the upper region of naked and rounded rock,
when he comes upon "a tremendous chasm--the bare amphitheatre of the
upper basin contracts into a valley of about 2,000 feet deep, rent at
its bottom into a cleft a thousand feet deeper still, down which
dashes a river, buried between these stupendous walls of rock. All
above the chasm is terraced as far as the eye can reach with
indefatigable industry. Tiny streamlets bound and leap from terrace to
terrace, fertilising them as they rush to join the torrent in the
abyss. Some of the waterfalls are of great height and of considerable
volume. From one spot may be counted no less than seven of these
cascades, now dashing in white spray over a cliff, now lost under the
shade of trees, soon to reappear over the next shelving rock."[38] Or,
to quote from another writer,[39]--"The descent from the summit is
gradual, but is everywhere broken by precipices and towering rocks,
which time and the elements have chiselled into strange fantastic
shapes. Ravines of singular wildness and grandeur furrow the whole
mountain-side, looking in many places like huge rents. Here and there,
too, bold promontories shoot out, and dip perpendicularly into the
bosom of the Mediterranean. The ragged limestone banks are scantily
clothed with the evergreen oak, and the sandstone with pines; while
every available spot is carefully cultivated. The cultivation is
wonderful, and shows what all Syria might be of under a good
government. Miniature fields of grain are often seen where one would
suppose that the eagles alone, which hover round them, could have
planted the seed. Fig-trees cling to the naked rock; vines are trained
along narrow ledges; long ranges of mulberries on terraces like steps
of stairs cover the more gentle declivities; and dense groves of
olives fill up the bottoms of the glens. Hundreds of villages are
seen, here built amid labyrinths of rock, there clinging like
swallows' nests to the sides of cliffs, while convents, no less
numerous, are perched on the top of every peak. When viewed from the
sea on a morning in early spring, Lebanon presents a picture which
once seen is never forgotten; but deeper still is the impression left
on the mind, when one looks down over its terraced slopes clothed in
their gorgeous foliage, and through the vistas of its magnificent
glens, on the broad and bright Mediterranean."

The eastern flank of the mountain falls very far short of the western
both in area and in beauty. It is a comparatively narrow region, and
presents none of the striking features of gorge, ravine, deep dell,
and dashing stream which diversify the side that looks westward. The
steep slopes are generally bare, the lower portion only being scantily
clothed with deciduous oak, for the most part stunted, and with low
scrub of juniper and barberry.[40] Towards the north there is an outer
barrier, parallel with the main chain, on which follows a tolerably
flat and rather bare plain, well watered, and with soft turf in many
parts, which gently slopes to the foot of the main ascent, a wall of
rock generally half covered with snow, up which winds the rough track
whereby travellers reach the summit. Rills of water are not wanting;
flowers bloom to the very edge of the snow, and the walnut-tree
flourishes in sheltered places to within two or three thousand feet of
the summit; but the general character of the tract is bare and bleak;
the villages are few; and the terraced cultivation, which adds so much
to the beauty of the western side, is wanting. In the southern half of
the range the descent is abrupt from the crest of the mountain into
the Buka'a, or valley of the Litany, and the aspect of the mountain-
side is one of "unrelieved bareness."[41]

There is, however, one beauty at one point on this side of the Lebanon
range which is absent from the more favoured western region. On the
ascent from Baalbek to the Cedars the traveller comes upon Lake
Lemone, a beautiful mountain tarn, without any apparent exit, the only
sheet of water in the Lebanon. Lake Lemone is of a long oval shape,
about two miles from one end to the other, and is fed by a stream
entering at either extremity, that from the north, which comes down
from the village of Ainât, being the more important. As the water
which comes into the lake cannot be discharged by evaporation, we must
suppose some underground outlet,[42] by which it is conveyed, through
the limestone, into the Litany.

The eastern side of Lebanon drains entirely into this river, which is
the only stream whereto it gives birth. The Litany is the principal of
all the Phœnician rivers, for the Orontes must be counted not to
Phœnicia but to Syria. It rises from a small pool or lake near Tel
Hushben,[43] about six miles to the south-west of the Baalbek ruins.
Springing from this source, which belongs to Antilibanus rather than
to Lebanon, the Litany shortly receives a large accession to its
waters from the opposite side of the valley, and thus augmented flows
along the lower Buka'a in a direction which is generally a little west
of south, receiving on either side a number of streams and rills from
both mountains, and giving out in its turn numerous canals for
irrigation. As the river descends with numerous windings, but still
with the same general course, the valley of the Buka'a contracts more
and more, till finally it terminates in a gorge of a most
extraordinary character. Nothing in the conformation of the strata, or
in the lie of ground, indicates the coming marvel[44]--the roots of
Lebanon and Hermon appear to intermix--and the further progress of the
river seems to be barred by a rocky ridge stretching across the valley
from east to west, when lo! suddenly, the ridge is cut, as if by a
knife, and a deep and narrow chasm opens in it, down which the stream
plunges in a cleft 200 feet deep, and so narrow that in one place it
is actually bridged over by masses of rock which have fallen from the
cliffs above.[45] In the gully below fig-trees and planes, besides
many shrubs, find a footing, and the moist walls of rock on either
side are hung with ferns of various kinds, among which is conspicuous
the delicate and graceful maidenhair. Further down the chasm deepens,
first to 1,000 and then to 1,500 feet, "the torrent roars in the
gorge, milk-white and swollen often with the melting snow, overhung
with semi-tropical oleanders, fig-trees, and oriental planes, while
the upper cliffs are clad with northern vegetation, two zones of
climate thus being visible at once."[46] Where the gorge is the
deepest, opposite the Castle of Belfort (the modern Kulat-esh-Shukif),
the river suddenly makes a turn at right angles, altering its course
from nearly due south to nearly due west, and cuts through the
remaining roots of Lebanon, still at the bottom of a tremendous
fissure, and still raging and chafing for a distance of fifteen miles,
until at length it debouches on the coast plain, and meanders slowly
through meadows to the sea,[47] which it enters about five miles to
the north of Tyre. The course of the Litany may be roughly estimated
at from seventy to seventy-five miles.

The other streams to which Lebanon gives birth flow either from its
northern or its western flank. From the northern flank flows one
stream only, the Nahr-el-Kebir or Eleutherus. The course of this
stream is short, not much exceeding thirty miles. It rises from
several sources at the edge of the Cœlesyrian valley, and, receiving
affluents from either side, flows westward between Bargylus and
Lebanon to the Mediterranean, which it enters between Orthosia
(Artousi) and Marathus (Amrith) with a stream, the volume of which is
even in the summer-time considerable. In the rainy season it
constitutes an important impediment to intercourse, since it
frequently sweeps away any bridge which may be thrown across it, and
is itself unfordable. Caravans sometimes remain encamped upon its
banks for weeks, waiting until the swell has subsided and crossing is
no longer dangerous.[48]

From the western flank of Lebanon flow above a hundred streams of
various dimensions, whereof the most important are the Nahr-el-Berid
or river of Orthosia, the Kadisha or river of Tripolis, the Ibrahim or
Adonis, the Nahr-el-Kelb or Lycus, the Damour or Tamyras, the Auly
(Aouleh) or Bostrenus, and the Zaherany, of which the ancient name is
unknown to us. The Nahr-el-Berid drains the north-western angle of the
mountain chain, and is formed of two main branches, one coming down
from the higher portion of the range, about Lat. 34º 20´, and flowing
to the north-west, while the other descends from a region of much less
elevation, about Lat. 34º 30´, and runs a little south of west to the
point of junction. The united stream then forces its way down a gorge
in a north-west direction, and enters the sea at Artousi, probably the
ancient Orthosia.[49] The length of the river from its remotest
fountain to its mouth is about twenty miles.

The Kadisha or "Holy River" has its source in the deep basin already
described, round which rise in a semicircle the loftiest peaks of the
range, and on the edge of which stand "the Cedars." Fed by the
perpetual snows, it shortly becomes a considerable stream, and flows
nearly due west down a beautiful valley, where the terraced slopes are
covered with vineyards and mulberry groves, and every little dell,
every nook and corner among the jagged rocks, every ledge and cranny
on precipice-side, which the foot of man can reach, or on which a
basket of earth can be deposited, is occupied with patch of corn or
fruit-tree.[50] Lower down near Canobin the valley contracts into a
sublime chasm, its rocky walls rising perpendicularly a thousand feet
on either side, and in places not leaving room for even a footpath
beside the stream that flows along the bottom.[51] The water of the
Kadisha is "pure, fresh, cool, and limpid,"[52] and makes a paradise
along its entire course. Below Canobin the stream sweeps round in a
semicircle towards the north, and still running in a picturesque glen,
draws near to Tripolis, where it bends towards the north-west, and
enters the sea after passing through the town. Its course, including
main windings, measures about twenty-five miles.

The Ibrahim, or Adonis, has its source near Afka (Apheca) in Lat. 34º
4´ nearly. It bursts from a cave at the foot of a tremendous cliff,
and its foaming waters rush down into a wild chasm.[53] Its flow is at
first towards the north-west, but after receiving a small tributary
from the north-east, it shapes its course nearly westward, and pursues
this direction, with only slight bends to the north and south, for the
distance of about fifteen miles to the sea. After heavy rain in
Lebanon, its waters, which are generally clear and limpid, become
tinged with the earth which the swollen torrent detaches from the
mountain-side,[54] and Adonis thus "runs purple to the sea"--not
however once a year only, but many times. It enters the Mediterranean
about four miles south of Byblus (Jebeil) and six north of Djouni.

The Lycus or Nahr-el-Kelb ("Dog River") flows from the northern and
western flanks of Jebel Sunnin. It is formed by the confluence of
three main streams. One of these rises near Afka, and runs to the
south of west, past the castle and temples of Fakra, to its junction
with the second stream, which is formed of several rivulets flowing
from the northern flank of Sunnin. Near Bufkeiya the river constituted
by the union of these two branches is joined by a third stream flowing
from the western flank of Sunnin with a westerly course, and from this
point the Lycus pursues its way in the same general direction down a
magnificent gorge to the Mediterranean. Both banks are lofty, but
especially that to the south, where one of Lebanon's great roots
strikes out far, and dips, a rocky precipice, into the bosom of the
deep.[55] Low in the depths of the gorge the mad torrent dashes over
its rocky bed in sheets of foam, its banks fringed with oleander,
which it bathes with its spray. Above rise jagged precipices of white
limestone, crowned far overhead by many a convent and village.[56] The
course of the Nahr-el-Kelbis about equal to that of the Adonis.

The Damour or Tamyras drains the western flank of Lebanon to the south
of Jebel Sunnin (about Lat. 33º 45´), the districts known as Menassif
and Jourd Arkoub, about Barouk and Deir-el-Kamar. It collects the
waters from an area of about 110 square miles, and carries them to the
sea in a course which is a little north of west, reaching it half-way
between Khan Khulda (Heldua) and Nebbi Younas. The scenery along its
banks is tame compared with that of the more northern rivers.

The Nahr-el-Auly or Bostrenus rises from a source to the north-east of
Barouk, and flows in a nearly straight course to the south-west for a
distance of nearly thirty-five miles, when it is joined by a stream
from Jezzin, which flows into it from the south-east. On receiving
this stream, the Auly turns almost at a right angle, and flows to the
west down the fine alluvial track called Merj Bisry, passing from this
point through comparatively low ground, and between swelling hills,
until it reaches the sea two miles to the north of Sidon. Its entire
course is not less than sixty miles.

The Zaherany repeats on a smaller scale the course of the Bostrenus.
It rises near Jerjû'a from the western flank of Jebel Rihan, the
southern extremity of the Lebanon range, and flows at first to the
south-west. The source is "a fine large fountain bursting forth with
violence, and with water enough for a mill race."[57] From this the
river flows in a deep valley, brawling and foaming along its course,
through tracts of green grass shaded by black walnut-trees for a
distance of about five miles, after which, just opposite Jerjû'a, it
breaks through one of the spurs from Rihan by a magnificent chasm. The
gorge is one "than which there are few deeper or more savage in
Lebanon. The mountains on each side rise up almost precipitously to
the height of two or three thousand feet above the stream, that on the
northern bank being considerably the higher. The steep sides of the
southern mountain are dotted with shrub, oak, and other dwarf
trees."[58] The river descends in its chasm still in a south-west
direction until, just opposite Arab Salim, it "turns round the
precipitous corner or bastion of the southern Rihan into a straight
valley," and proceeds to run due south for a short distance. Meeting,
however, a slight swell of ground, which blocks what would seem to
have been its natural course, the river "suddenly turns west," and
breaking through a low ridge by a narrow ravine, pursues its way by a
course a little north of west to the Mediterranean, which it enters
about midway between Sidon and Sarepta.[59] The length of the stream,
including main windings, is probably not more than thirty-five miles.

We have spoken of the numerous promontories, terminations of spurs
from the mountains, which break the low coast-line into fragments, and
go down precipitously into the sea. Of these there are two between
Tyre and Acre, one known as the Ras-el-Abiad or "White Headland," and
the other as the Ras-en-Nakura. The former is a cliff of snow-white
chalk interspersed with black flints, and rises perpendicularly from
the sea to the height of three hundred feet.[60] The road, which in
some places impends over the water, has been cut with great labour
through the rock, and is said by tradition to have been the work of
Alexander the Great. Previously, both here and at the Ras-en-Nakura,
the ascent was by steps, and the passes were known as the Climaces
Tyriorum, or "Staircases of the Tyrians." Another similar precipice
guards the mouth of the Lycus on its south side and has been
engineered with considerable skill, first by the Egyptians and then by
the Romans.[61] North of this, at Djouni, the coast road "traverses
another pass, where the mountain, descending to the water, has been
cut to admit it."[62] Still further north, between Byblus and
Tripolis, the bold promontory known to the ancients as Theu-prosopon,
and now called the Ras-esh-Shakkah, is still unconquered, and the road
has to quit the shore and make its way over the spur by a "wearisome
ascent"[63] at some distance inland. Again, "beyond the Tamyras the
hills press closely on the sea,"[64] and there is "a rocky and
difficult pass, along which the path is cut for some distance in the
rock."[65]

The effect of this conformation of the country was, in early times, to
render Phœnicia untraversable by a hostile army, and at the same time
to interpose enormous difficulties in the way of land communication
among the natives themselves, who must have soon turned their thoughts
to the possibility of communicating by sea. The various "staircases"
were painful and difficult to climb, they gave no passage to animals,
and only light forms of merchandise could be conveyed by them. As soon
as the first rude canoe put forth upon the placid waters of the
Mediterranean, it must have become evident that the saving in time and
labour would be great if the sea were made to supersede the land as
the ordinary line of communication.

The main characteristics of the country were, besides its
inaccessibility, its picturesqueness and its productiveness. The
former of these two qualities seems to have possessed but little
attraction for man in his primitive condition. Beauties of nature are
rarely sung of by early poets; and it appears to require an educated
eye to appreciate them. But productiveness is a quality the advantages
of which can be perceived by all. The eyes which first looked down
from the ridge of Bargylus or Lebanon upon the well-watered, well-
wooded, and evidently fertile tract between the mountain summits and
the sea, if they took no note of its marvellous and almost unequalled
beauty, must at any rate have seen that here was one of earth's most
productive gardens--emphatically a "good land," that might well
content whosoever should be so fortunate as to possess it. There is
nothing equal to it in Western Asia. The Damascene oasis, the lower
valley of the Orontes, the Ghor or Jordan plain, the woods of Bashan,
and the downs of Moab are fertile and attractive regions; but they are
comparatively narrow tracts and present little variety; each is fitted
mainly for one kind of growth, one class of products. Phœnicia, in its
long extent from Mount Casius to Joppa, and in its combination of low
alluvial plain, rich valley, sunny slopes and hills, virgin forests,
and high mountain pasturage, has soils and situations suited for
productions of all manner of kinds, and for every growth, from that of
the lowliest herb to that of the most gigantic tree. In the next
section an account of its probable products in ancient times will be
given; for the present it is enough to note that Western Asia
contained no region more favoured or more fitted by its general
position, its formation, and the character of its soil, to become the
home of an important nation.



CHAPTER II

CLIMATE AND PRODUCTIONS

  Climate of Phœnicia--Varieties--Climate of the coast, in the
  south, in the north--Climate of the more elevated regions--
  Vegetable productions--Principal trees--Most remarkable shrubs and
  fruit-trees--Herbs, flowers, and garden vegetables--Zoology--Land
  animals--Birds--Marine and fresh-water fish--Principal shell-fish
  --Minerals.

The long extent of the Phœnician coast, and the great difference in
the elevation of its various parts, give it a great diversity of
climate. Northern Phœnicia is many degrees colder than southern; and
the difference is still more considerable between the coast tracts and
the more elevated portions of the mountain regions. The greatest heat
is experienced in the plain of Sharon,[1] which is at once the most
southern portion of the country, and the part most remote from any
hills of sufficient elevation to exert an important influence on the
temperature. Neither Carmel on the north, nor the hills of Samaria on
the east, produce any sensible effect on the climate of the Sharon
lowland. The heat in summer is intense, and except along the river
courses the tract is burnt up, and becomes little more than an expanse
of sand. As a compensation, the cold in winter is very moderate. Snow
scarcely ever falls, and if there is frost it is short-lived, and does
not penetrate into the ground.[2]

Above Carmel the coast tract is decidedly less hot than the region
south of it, and becomes cooler and cooler as we proceed northwards.
Northern Phœnicia enjoys a climate that is delightful, and in which it
would be difficult to suggest much improvement. The summer heat is
scarcely ever too great, the thermometer rarely exceeding 90º of
Fahrenheit,[3] and often sinking below 70º. Refreshing showers of rain
frequently fall, and the breezes from the north, the east, and the
south-east, coming from high mountain tracts which are in part snow-
clad, temper the heat of the sun's rays and prevent it from being
oppressive. The winter temperature seldom descends much below 50º; and
thus the orange, the lemon and the date-palm flourish in the open air,
and the gardens are bright with flowers even in December and January.
Snow falls occasionally, but it rarely lies on the ground for more
than a few days, and is scarcely ever so much as a foot deep. On the
other hand, rain is expected during the winter-time, and the entire
line of coast is visited for some months with severe storms and gales,
accompanied often by thunder and violent rain,[4] which strew the
shore with wrecks and turn even insignificant mountain streams into
raging torrents. The storms come chiefly from the west and north-west,
quarters to which the harbours on the coast are unfortunately open.[5]
Navigation consequently suffers interruption; but when once the winter
is past, a season of tranquillity sets in, and for many months of the
year--at any rate from May to October[6]--the barometer scarcely
varies, the sky is unclouded, and rain all but unknown.

As the traveller mounts from the coast tract into the more elevated
regions, the climate sensibly changes. An hour's ride from the plains,
when they are most sultry, will bring him into a comparatively cool
region, where the dashing spray of the glacier streams is borne on the
air, and from time to time a breeze that is actually cold comes down
from the mountain-tops.[7] Shade is abundant, for the rocks are often
perpendicular, and overhand the road in places, while the dense
foliage of cedars, or pines, or walnut-trees, forms an equally
effectual screen against the sun's noonday rays. In winter the uplands
are, of course, cold. Severe weather prevails in them from November to
March;[8] snow falls on all the high ground, while it rains on the
coast and in the lowlands; the passes are blocked; and Lebanon and
Bargylus replenish the icy stories which the summer's heat has
diminished.

The vegetable productions of Phœnicia may be best considered under the
several heads of trees, shrubs, herbs, flowers, fruit-trees, and
garden vegetables. The chief trees were the palm-tree, the sycamore,
the maritime pine, and the plane in the lowlands; in the highlands the
cedar, Aleppo pine, oak, walnut, poplar, acacia, shumac, and carob. We
have spoken of the former abundance of the palm. At present it is
found in comparatively few places, and seldom in any considerable
numbers. It grows singly, or in groups of two or three, at various
points of the coast from Tripolis to Acre, but is only abundant in a
few spots more towards the south, as at Haifa, under Carmel, where
"fine date-palms" are numerous in the gardens,[9] and at Jaffa, where
travellers remark "a broad belt of two or three miles of date-palms
and orange-groves laden with fruit."[10] The wood was probably not
much used as timber except in the earliest times, since Lebanon
afforded so many kinds of trees much superior for building purposes.
The date-palm was also valued for its fruit, though the produce of the
Phœnician groves can never have been of a high quality.

The sycamore, or sycamine-fig, is a dark-foliaged tree, with a gnarled
stem when it is old;[11] it grows either singly or in clumps, and much
more resembles in appearance the English oak than the terebinth does,
which has been so often compared to it. The stem is short, and sends
forth wide lateral branches forking out in all directions, which
renders the tree very easy to climb. It bears a small fig in great
abundance, and probably at all seasons, which, however, is "tasteless
and woody,"[12] though eaten by the inhabitants. The sycamore is
common along the Phœnician lowland, but is a very tender tree and will
not grow in the mountains.

The plane-tree, common in Asia Minor, is not very frequent either in
Phœnicia or Palestine. It occurs, however, on the middle course of the
Litany, where it breaks through the roots of Lebanon,[13] and also in
many of the valleys[14] on the western flank of the mountain. The
maritime pine (/Pinus maritama/) extends in forests here and there
along the shore,[15] and is found of service in checking the advance
of the sand dunes, which have a tendency to encroach seriously on the
cultivable soil.

Of the upland trees the most common is the oak. There are three
species of oak in the country. The most prevalent is an evergreen oak
(/Quercus pseudococcifera/), sometimes mistaken by travellers for a
holly, sometimes for an ibex, which covers in a low dense bush many
miles of the hilly country everywhere, and occasionally becomes a
large tree in the Lebanon valleys,[16] and on the flanks of Casius and
Bargylus. Another common oak is /Quercus Ægilops/, a much smaller and
deciduous tree, very stout-trunked, which grows in scattered groups on
Carmel and elsewhere, "giving a park-like appearance to the
landscape."[17] The third kind is /Quercus infectoria/, a gall-oak,
also deciduous, and very conspicuous from the large number of bright,
chestnut-coloured, viscid galls which it bears, and which are now
sometimes gathered for exportation.[18]

Next to the oak may be mentioned the walnut, which grows to a great
size in sheltered positions in the Lebanon range, both upon the
eastern and upon the western flank;[19] the poplar, which is found
both in the mountains[20] and in the low country, as especially about
Beyrout;[21] the Aleppo pine (/Pinus halepensis/), of which there are
large woods in Carmel, Lebanon, and Bargylus,[22] while in Casius
there is an enormous forest of them;[23] and the carob (/Ceratonia
siliqua/), or locust-tree, a dense-foliaged tree of a bright lucid
green hue, which never grows in clumps or forms woods, but appears as
an isolated tree, rounded or oblong, and affords the best possible
shade.[24] In the vicinity of Tyre are found also large tamarisks,
maples, sumachs, and acacias.[25]

But the tree which is the glory of Phœnicia, and which was by far the
most valuable of all its vegetable productions, is, of course, the
cedar. Growing to an immense height, and attaining an enormous girth,
it spreads abroad its huge flat branches hither and thither, covering
a vast space of ground with its "shadowing shroud,"[26] and presenting
a most majestic and magnificent appearance. Its timber may not be of
first-rate quality, and there is some question whether it was really
used for the masts of their ships by the Phœnicians,[27] but as
building material it was beyond a doubt most highly prized, answering
sufficiently for all the purposes required by architectural art, and
at the same time delighting the sense of smell by its aromatic odour.
Solomon employed it both for the Temple and for his own house;[28] the
Assyrian kings cut it and carried it to Nineveh;[29] Herod the Great
used it for the vast additions that he made to Zerubbabel's
temple;[30] it was exported to Egypt and Asia Minor; the Ephesian
Greeks constructed of cedar, probably of cedar from Lebanon, the roof
of their famous temple of Diana.[31] At present the wealth of Lebanon
in cedars is not great, but the four hundred which form the grove near
the source of the Kadisha, and the many scattered cedar woods in other
places, are to be viewed as remnants of one great primeval forest,
which originally covered all the upper slopes on the western side, and
was composed, if not exclusively, at any rate predominantly, of
cedars.[32] Cultivation, the need of fuel, and the wants of builders,
have robbed the mountain of its primitive bright green vest, and left
it either bare rock or terraced garden; but in the early times of
Phœnicia, the true Lebanon cedar must undoubtedly have been its chief
forest tree, and have stood to it as the pine to the Swiss Alps and
the chestnut to the mountains of North Italy.

Of shrubs, below the rank of trees, the most important are the lentisk
(/Pistachia lentiscus/), the bay, the arbutus (/A. andrachne/), the
cypress, the oleander, the myrtle, the juniper, the barberry, the
styrax (/S. officinalis/), the rhododendron, the bramble, the caper
plant, the small-leaved holly, the prickly pear, the honeysuckle, and
the jasmine. Myrtle and rhododendron grow luxuriantly on the flanks of
Bargylus, and are more plentiful than any other shrubs in that
region.[33] Eastern Lebanon has abundant scrub of juniper and
barberry;[34] while on the western slopes their place is taken by the
bramble, the myrtle, and the clematis.[35] The lentisk, which rarely
exceeds the size of a low bush, is conspicuous by its dark evergreen
leaves and numerous small red berries;[36] the arbutus--not our
species, but a far lighter and more ornamental shrub, the /Arbutus
andrachne/--bears also a bright red fruit, which colours the
thickets;[37] the styrax, famous for yielding the gum storax of
commerce, grows towards the east end of Carmel, and is a very large
bush branching from the ground, but never assuming the form of a tree;
it has small downy leaves, white flowers like orange blossoms, and
round yellow fruit, pendulous from slender stalks, like cherries.[38]
Travellers in Phœnicia do not often mention the caper plant, but it
was seen by Canon Tristram hanging from the fissures of the rock, in
the cleft of the Litany,[39] amid myrtle and bay and clematis. The
small-leaved holly was noticed by Mr. Walpole on the western flank of
Bargylus.[40] The prickly pear is not a native of Asia, but has been
introduced from the New World. It has readily acclimatised itself, and
is very generally employed, in Phœnicia, as in the neighbouring
countries, for hedges.[41]

The fruit-trees of Phœnicia are numerous, and grow most luxuriantly,
but the majority have no doubt been introduced from other countries,
and the time of their introduction is uncertain. Five, however, may be
reckoned as either indigenous or as cultivated at any rate from a
remote antiquity--the vine, the olive, the date-palm, the walnut, and
the fig. The vine is most widely spread. Vineyards cover large tracts
in the vicinity of all the towns; they climb up the sides of Carmel,
Lebanon, and Bargylus,[42] hang upon the edge of precipices, and greet
the traveller at every turn in almost every region. The size of
individual vines is extraordinary. "Stephen Schultz states that in a
village near Ptolemaïs (Acre) he supped under a large vine, the stem
of which measured a foot and a half in diameter, its height being
thirty feet; and that the whole plant, supported on trellis, covered
an area of fifty feet either way. The bunches of grapes weighed from
ten to twelve pounds and the berries were like small plums."[43] The
olive in Phœnicia is at least as old as the Exodus, for it was said of
Asher, who was assigned the more southern part of that country--"Let
him be acceptable to his brethren, and let him dip his foot in
oil."[44] Olives at the present day clothe the slopes of Lebanon and
Bargylus above the vine region,[45] and are carried upward almost to
the very edge of the bare rock. They yield largely, and produce an oil
of an excellent character. Fine olive-groves are also to be seen on
Carmel,[46] in the neighbourhood of Esfia. The date-palm has already
been spoken of as a tree, ornamenting the landscape and furnishing
timber of tolerable quality. As a fruit-tree it is not greatly to be
prized, since it is only about Haifa and Jaffa that it produces
dates,[47] and those of no high repute. The walnut has all the
appearance of being indigenous in Lebanon, where it grows to a great
size,[48] and bears abundance of fruit. The fig is also, almost
certainly, a native; it grows plentifully, not only in the orchards
about towns, but on the flanks of Lebanon, on Bargylus, and in the
northern Phœnician plain.[49]

The other fruit-trees of the present day are the mulberry, the
pomegranate, the orange, the lemon, the lime, the peach, the apricot,
the plum, the cherry, the quince, the apple, the pear, the almond, the
pistachio nut, and the banana. The mulberry is cultivated largely on
the Lebanon[50] in connection with the growth of silkworms, but is not
valued as a fruit-tree. The pomegranate is far less often seen, but it
is grown in the gardens about Saida,[51] and the fruit has sometimes
been an article of exportation.[52] The orange and lemon are among the
commonest fruits, but are generally regarded as comparatively late
introductions. The lime is not often noticed, but obtains mention in
the work of Mr. Walpole.[53] The peach and apricot are for the most
part standard trees, though sometimes trained on trellises.[54] They
were perhaps derived from Mesopotamia or Persia, but at what date it
is quite impossible to conjecture. Apples, pears, plums, cherries,
quinces, are not unlikely to have been indigenous, though of course
the present species are the result of long and careful cultivation.
The same may be said of the almond and the pistachio nut. The banana
is a comparatively recent importation. It is grown along the coast
from Jaffa as far north as Tripolis, and yields a fruit which is said
to be of excellent quality.[55]

Altogether, Phœnicia may be pronounced a land of fruits. Hasselquist
says,[56] that in his time Sidon grew pomegranates, apricots, figs,
almonds, oranges, lemons, and plums in such abundance as to furnish
annually several shiploads for export, while D'Arvieux adds to this
list pears, peaches, cherries, and bananas.[57] Lebanon alone can
furnish grapes, olives, mulberries, figs, apples, apricots, walnuts,
cherries, peaches, lemons, and oranges. The coast tract adds
pomegranates, limes, and bananas. It has been said that Carmel, a
portion of Phœnicia, is "the garden of Eden run wild;"[58] but the
phrase might be fitly applied to the entire country.

Of herbs possessing some value for man, Phœnicia produces sage,
rosemary, lavender, rue, and wormwood.[59] Of flowers she has an
extraordinary abundance. In early spring (March and April) not only
the plains, but the very mountains, except where they consist of bare
rock, are covered with a variegated carpet of the loveliest hues[60]
from the floral wealth scattered over them. Bulbous plants are
especially numerous. Travellers mention hyacinths, tulips,
ranunculuses, gladioli, anemones, orchises, crocuses of several kinds
--blue and yellow and white, arums, amaryllises, cyclamens, &c.,
besides heaths, jasmine, honeysuckle, clematis, /multiflora/ roses,
rhododendrons, oleander, myrtle, astragalus, hollyhocks, convolvuli,
valerian, red linum, pheasant's eye, guelder roses, antirrhinums,
chrysanthemums, blue campanulas, and mandrakes. The orchises include
"/Ophrys atrata/, with its bee-like lip, another like the spider
orchis, and a third like the man orchis;"[61] the cyclamens are
especially beautiful, "nestling under every stone and lavish of their
loveliness with graceful tufts of blossoms varying in hue from purest
white to deepest purple pink."[62] The multiflora rose is not common,
but where it grows "covers the banks of streams with a sheet of
blossom;"[63] the oleanders fringe their waters with a line of ruby
red; the mandrake (/Mandragora officinalis/) is "one of the most
striking plants of the country, with its flat disk of very broad
primrose-like leaves, and its central bunch of dark blue bell-shaped
blossom."[64] Ferns also abound, and among them is the delicate
maidenhair.[65]

The principal garden vegetables grown at the present day are melons,
cucumbers, gourds, pumpkins, turnips, carrots, and radishes.[66] The
kinds of grain most commonly cultivated are wheat, barley, millet, and
maize. There is also an extensive cultivation of tobacco, indigo, and
cotton, which have been introduced from abroad in comparatively modern
times. Oil, silk, and fruits are, however, still among the chief
articles of export; and the present wealth of the country is
attributable mainly to its groves and orchards, its olives,
mulberries, figs, lemons, and oranges.

The zoology of Phœnicia has not until recently attracted very much
attention. At present the list of land animals known to inhabit it is
short,[67] including scarcely more than the bear, the leopard or
panther, the wolf, the hyæna, the jackal, the fox, the hare, the wild
boar, the ichneumon, the gazelle, the squirrel, the rat, and the mole.
The present existence of the bear within the limits of the ancient
Phœnicia has been questioned,[68] but the animal has been seen in
Lebanon by Mr. Porter,[69] and in the mountains of Galilee by Canon
Tristram.[70] The species is the Syrian bear (/Ursus syriacus/), a
large and fierce beast, which, though generally frugivorous, will
under the presser of hunger attack both men and animals. Its main
habitat is, no doubt, the less accessible parts of Lebanon; but in the
winter it will descend to the villages and gardens, where it often
does much damage.[71] The panther or leopard has, like the bear, been
seen by Mr. Porter in the Lebanon range;[72] and Canon Tristram, when
visiting Carmel, was offered the skin of an adult leopard[73] which
had probably been killed in that neighbourhood. Anciently it was much
more frequent in Phœnicia and Palestine than it is at present, as
appears by the numerous notices of it in Scripture.[74] Wolves,
hyænas, and jackals are comparatively common. They haunt not only
Carmel and Lebanon, but many portions of the coast tract. Canon
Tristram obtained from Carmel "the two largest hyænas that he had ever
seen,"[75] and fell in with jackals in the vicinity.[76] Wolves seem
to be more scarce, though anciently very plentiful.

The favourite haunts of the wild boar (/Sus scrofa/) in Phœnicia are
Carmel[77] and the deep valleys on the western slope of Lebanon. The
valley of the Adonis (Ibrahim) is still noted for them,[78] but,
except on Carmel, they are not very abundant. Foxes and hares are also
somewhat rare, and it is doubtful whether rabbits are to be found in
any part of the country;[79] ichneumons, which are tolerably common,
seem sometimes to be mistaken for them. Gazelles are thought to
inhabit Carmel,[80] and squirrels, rats, and moles are common. Bats
also, if they may be counted among land-animals, are frequent; they
belong, it is probable, to several species, one of which is
/Xantharpyia ægyptiaca/.[81]

If the fauna of Phœnicia is restricted so far as land-animals are
concerned, it is extensive and varied in respect of birds. The list of
known birds includes two sorts of eagle (/Circaëtos gallicus/ and
/Aquila nævioïdes/), the osprey, the vulture, the falcon, the kite,
the honey-buzzard, the marsh-harrier, the sparrow-hawk, owls of two
kinds (/Ketupa ceylonensis/ and /Athene meridionalis/), the grey
shrike (/Lanius excubitor/), the common cormorant, the pigmy cormorant
(/Græculus pygmæus/), numerous seagulls, as the Adriatic gull (/Larus
melanocephalus/), Andonieri's gull, the herring-gull, the Red-Sea-gull
(/Larus ichthyo-aëtos/), and others; the gull-billed tern (/Sterna
anglica/), the Egyptian goose, the wild duck, the woodcock, the Greek
partridge (/Caccabis saxatilis/), the waterhen, the corncrake or
landrail, the coot, the water-ouzel, the francolin; plovers of three
kinds, green, golden, and Kentish; dotterels of two kinds, red-
throated and Asiatic; the Manx shearwater, the flamingo, the heron,
the common kingfisher, and the black and white kingfisher of Egypt,
the jay, the wood-pigeon, the rock-dove, the blue thrush, the Egyptian
fantail (/Drymœca gracilis/), the redshank, the wheat-ear (/Saxicola
libanotica/), the common lark, the Persian horned lark, the cisticole,
the yellow-billed Alpine chough, the nightingale of the East (/Ixos
xanthopygius/), the robin, the brown linnet, the chaffinch; swallows
of two kinds (/Hirundo cahirica/ and /Hirundo rufula/); the meadow
bunting; the Lebanon redstart, the common and yellow water-wagtails,
the chiffchaff, the coletit, the Russian tit, the siskin, the
nuthatch, and the willow wren. Of these the most valuable for the
table are the partridge, the francolin, and the woodcock. The Greek
partridge is "a fine red-legged bird, much larger than our red-legged
partridge, and very much better eating, with white flesh, and nearly
as heavy as a pheasant."[82] The francolin or black partridge is also
a delicacy; and the woodcock, which is identical with our own, has the
same delicate flavour.

The fish of Phœnicia, excepting certain shell-fish, are little known,
and have seldom attracted the attention of travellers. The
Mediterranean, however, where it washes the Phœnician coast, can
furnish excellent mullet,[83] while most of the rivers contain
freshwater fish of several kinds, as the /Blennius lupulus/, the
/Scaphiodon capoëta/, and the /Anguilla microptera/.[84] All of these
fish may be eaten, but the quality is inferior.

On the other hand, to certain of the shell-fish of Phœnicia a great
celebrity attaches. The purple dye which gave to the textile fabrics
of the Phœnicians a world-wide reputation was prepared from certain
shell-fish which abounded upon their coast. Four existing species have
been regarded as more or less employed in the manufacture, and it
seems to be certain, at any rate, that the Phœnicians derived the dye
from more shell-fish than one. The four are the /Buccinum lapillus/ of
Pliny,[85] which is the /Purpura lapillus/ of modern naturalists; the
/Murex trunculus/; the /Murex brandaris/; and the /Helix ianthina/.
The Buccinum derives its name from the form of the shell, which has a
wide mouth, like that of a trumpet, and which after one or two twists
terminates in a pointed head.[86] The /Murex trunculus/ has the same
general form as the Buccinum; but the shell is more rough and spinous,
being armed with a number of long thin projections which terminate in
a sharp point.[87] The /Murex brandaris/ is a closely allied species,
and "one of the most plentiful on the Phœnician coast."[88] It is
unlikely that the ancients regarded it as a different shell from
/Murex trunculus/. The /Helix ianthina/ has a wholly different
character. It is a sort of sea-snail, as the name /helix/ implies, is
perfectly smooth, "very delicate and fragile, and not more than about
three-quarters of an inch in diameter."[89] All these shell-fish
contain a /sac/ or bag full of colouring matter, which is capable of
being used as a dye. It is quite possible that they were all, more or
less, made use of by the Phœnician dyers; but the evidence furnished
by existing remains on the Tyrian coast is strongly in favour of the
/Murex brandaris/ as the species principally employed.[90]

The mineral treasures of Phœnicia have not, in modern times, been
examined with any care. The Jura limestone, which forms the substratum
of the entire region, cannot be expected to yield any important
mineral products. But the sandstone, which overlies it in places, is
"often largely impregnated with iron," and some strata towards the
southern end of Lebanon are said to produce "as much as ninety per
cent. of pure iron ore."[91] An ochrous earth is also found in the
hills above Beyrout, which gives from fifty to sixty per cent. of
metal.[92] Coal, too, has been found in the same locality, but it is
of bad quality, and does not exist in sufficient quantity to form an
important product. Limestone, both cretaceous and siliceous, is
plentiful, as are sandstone, trap and basalt; while porphyry and
greenstone are also obtainable.[93] Carmel yields crystals of quarts
and chalcedony,[94] and the fine sand about Tyre and Sidon is still
such as would make excellent glass. But the main productions of
Phœnicia, in which its natural wealth consisted, must always have been
vegetable, rather than animal or mineral, and have consisted in its
timber, especially its cedars and pines; its fruits, as olives, figs,
grapes, and, in early times, dates; and its garden vegetables, melons,
gourds, pumpkins, cucumbers.



CHAPTER III

THE PEOPLE--ORIGIN AND CHARACTERISTICS

  Semitic origin of the Phœnicians--Characteristics of the Semites--
  Place of the Phœnicians within the Semitic group--Connected
  linguistically with the Israelites and the Assyro-Babylonians--
  Original seat of the nation, Lower Babylonia--Special
  characteristics of the Phœnician people--Industry and perseverance
  --Audacity in enterprise--Pliability and adaptability--Acuteness
  of intellect--Business capacity--Charge made against them of bad
  faith--Physical characteristics.

The Phœnician people are generally admitted to have belonged to the
group of nations known as Semitic. This group, somewhat irrelevantly
named, since the descent of several of them from Shem is purely
problematic, comprises the Assyrians, the later Babylonians, the
Aramæans or Syrians, the Arabians, the Moabites, the Phœnicians, and
the Hebrews. A single and very marked type of language belongs to the
entire group, and a character of homogeneity may, with certain
distinctions, be observed among all the various members composing it.
The unity of language is threefold: it may be traced in the roots, in
the inflections, and in the general features of the syntax. The roots
are, as a rule, bilateral or trilateral, composed (that is) of two or
three letters, all of which are consonants. The consonants determine
the general sense of the words, and are alone expressed in the
primitive writing; the vowel sounds do but modify more or less the
general sense, and are unexpressed until the languages begin to fall
into decay. The roots are, almost all of them, more or less physical
and sensuous. They are derived in general from an imitation of nature.
"If one looked only to the Semitic languages," says M. Renan,[1] "one
would say, that sensation alone presided over the first acts of the
human intellect, and that language was primarily nothing but a mere
reflex of the external world. If we run through the list of Semitic
roots, we scarcely meet with a single one which does not present to us
a sense primarily material, which is then transferred, by transitions
more or less direct and immediate, to things which are intellectual."
Derivative words are formed from the roots by a few simple and regular
laws. The noun is scarcely inflected at all; but the verb has a
marvellous wealth of conjugations, calculated to express excellently
well the external relations of ideas, but altogether incapable of
expressing their metaphysical relations, from the want of definitely
marked tenses and moods. Inflections in general have a half-
agglutinative character, the meaning and origin of the affixes and
suffixes being palpable. Syntax scarcely exists, the construction of
sentences having such a general character of simplicity, especially in
narrative, that one might compare it with the naïve utterances of an
infant. The utmost endeavour of the Semites is to join words together
so as to form a sentence; to join sentences is an effort altogether
beyond them. They employ the {lexis eiromene} of Aristotle,[2] which
proceeds by accumulating atom on atom, instead of attempting the
rounded period of the Latins and Greeks.

The common traits of character among Semitic nations have been summed
up by one writer under five heads:--1. Pliability combined with iron
fixity of purpose; 2. Depth and force; 3. A yearning for dreamy ease;
4. Capacity for the hardest work; and 5. Love of abstract thought.[3]
Another has thought to find them in the following list:--1. An
intuitive monotheism; 2. Intolerance; 3. Prophetism; 4. Want of the
philisophic and scientific faculties; 5. Want of curiosity; 6. Want of
appreciation of mimetic art; 7. Want of capacity for true political
life.[4] According to the latter writer, "the Semitic race is to be
recognized almost entirely by negative characteristics; it has no
mythology, no epic poetry, no science, no philosophy, no fiction, no
plastic arts, no civil life; everywhere it shows absence of
complexity; absence of combination; an exclusive sentiment of
unity."[5] It is not very easy to reconcile these two views, and not
very satisfactory to regard a race as "characterised by negatives."
Agreement should consist in positive features, and these may perhaps
be found, first, in strength and depth of the religious feeling,
combined with firm belief in the personality of the Deity; secondly,
in dogged determination and "iron fixity of purpose;" thirdly, in
inventiveness and skill in the mechanical arts and other industries;
fourthly, in "capacity for hard work;" and, fifthly, in a certain
adaptability and pliability, suiting the race for expansion and for
commerce. All these qualities are perhaps not conspicuous in all the
branches of the Semites, but the majority of them will be found united
in all, and in some the combination would seem to be complete.

It is primarily on account of their language that the Phœnicians are
regarded as Semites. When there are no historical grounds for
believing that a nation has laid aside its own original form of
speech, and adopted an alien dialect, language, if not a certain, is
at least a very strong, evidence of ethnic character. Counter-evidence
may no doubt rebut the /prima facie/ presumption; but in the case of
the Phœnicians no counter-evidence is producible. They belong to
exactly that geographic zone in which Semitism has always had its
chief seat; they cannot be shown to have been ever so circumstanced as
to have had any inducement to change their speech; and their physical
character and mental characteristics would, by themselves, be almost
sufficient ground for assigning them to the type whereto their
language points.

The place which the Phœnicians occupy within the Semitic group is a
question considerably more difficult to determine. By local position
they should belong to the western, or Aramaic branch, rather than to
the eastern, or Assyro-Babylonian, or to the southern, or Arab. But
the linguistic evidence scarcely lends itself to such a view, while
the historic leads decidedly to an opposite conclusion. There is a far
closer analogy between the Palestinian group of languages--Phœnician,
Hebrew, Moabite, and the Assyro-Babylonian, than between either of
these and the Aramaic. The Aramaic is scanty both in variety of
grammatical forms and in vocabulary; the Phœnician and Assyro-
Babylonian are comparatively copious.[6] The Aramaic has the character
of a degraded language; the Assyro-Babylonian and the Phœnician are
modelled on a primitive type.[7] In some respects Phœnician is even
closer to Assyro-Babylonian than Hebrew is--e.g. in preferring /at/ to
/ah/ for the feminine singular termination.[8]

The testimony of history to the origin of the Phœnicians is the
following. Herodotus tells us that both the Phœnicians themselves, and
the Persians best acquainted with history and antiquities, agreed in
stating that the original settlements of the Phœnician people were
upon the Erythræan Sea (Persian Gulf), and that they had migrated from
that quarter at a remote period, and transferred their abode to the
shores of the Mediterranean.[9] Strabo adds that the inhabitants of
certain islands in the Persian Gulf had a similar tradition, and
showed temples in their cities which were Phœnician in character.[10]
Justin, or rather Trogus Pompeius, whom he abbreviated, writes as
follows:--"The Syrian nation was founded by the Phœnicians, who, being
disturbed by an earthquake, left their native land, and settled first
of all in the neighbourhood of the Assyrian Lake, and subsequently on
the shore of the Mediterranean, where they built a city which they
called Sidon on account of the abundance of the fish; for the
Phœnicians call a fish /sidon/."[11] The "Assyrian lake" of this
passage is probably the Bahr Nedjif, or "Sea of Nedjif," in the
neighbourhood of the ancient Babylon, a permanent sheet of water,
varying in its dimensions at different seasons, but generally about
forty miles long, and from ten to twenty broad.[12] Attempts have been
made to discredit this entire story, but the highest living authority
on the subject of Phœnicia and the Phœnicians adopts it as almost
certainly true, and observes:--"The tradition relative to the sojourn
of the Phœnicians on the borders of the Erythræan Sea, before their
establishment on the coast of the Mediterranean, has thus a new light
thrown upon it. It appears from the labours of M. Movers, and from the
recent discoveries made at Nineveh and Babylon, that the civilisation
and religion of Phœnicia and Assyria were very similar. Independently
of this, the majority of modern critics admit it as demonstrated that
the primitive abode of the Phœnicians ought to be placed upon the
Lower Euphrates, in the midst of the great commercial and maritime
establishments of the Persian Gulf, agreeable to the unanimous witness
of all antiquity."[13]

If we pass from the probable origin of the Phœnician people, and their
place in the Semitic group, to their own special characteristics, we
shall find ourselves upon surer ground, though even here there are
certain points which are debateable. The following is the account of
their general character given by a very high authority, and by one
who, on the whole, may be regarded as an admirer:--

"The Phœnicians form, in some respects, the most important fraction of
the whole group of antique nations, notwithstanding that they sprang
from the most obscure and insignificant families. This fraction, when
settled, was constantly exposed to inroad by new tribes, was utterly
conquered and subjected by utter strangers when it had taken a great
place among the nations, and yet by industry, by perseverance, by
acuteness of intellect, by unscrupulousness and wait of faith, by
adaptability and pliability when necessary, and dogged defiance at
other times, by total disregard of the rights of the weaker, they
obtained the foremost place in the history of their times, and the
highest reputation, not only for the things that they did, but for
many that they did not. They were the first systematic traders, the
first miners and metallurgists, the greatest inventors (if we apply
such a term to those who kept an ever-watchful lookout for the
inventions of others, and immediately applied them to themselves with
some grand improvements on the original idea); they were the boldest
mariners, the greatest colonisers, who at one time held not only the
gorgeous East, but the whole of the then half-civilised West in fee--
who could boast of a form of government approaching to
constitutionalism, who of all nations of the time stood highest in
practical arts and sciences, and into whose laps there flowed an
unceasing stream of the world's entire riches, until the day came when
they began to care for nothing else, and the enjoyment of material
comforts and luxuries took the place of the thirst for and search
after knowledge. Their piratical prowess and daring was undermined;
their colonies, grown old enough to stand alone, fell away from them,
some after a hard fight, others in mutual agreement or silently; and
the nations in whose estimation and fear they had held the first
place, and who had been tributary to them, disdained them, ignored
them, and finally struck them utterly out of the list of nations, till
they dwindled away miserably, a warning to all who should come after
them."[14]

The prominent qualities in this description would seem to be industry
and perseverance, audacity in enterprise, adaptability and pliability,
acuteness of intellect, unscrupulousness, and want of good faith. The
Phœnicians were certainly among the most industrious and persevering
of mankind. The accounts which we have of them from various quarters,
and the remains which cover the country that they once inhabited,
sufficiently attest their unceasing and untiring activity through
almost the whole period of their existence as a nation. Always
labouring in their workshops at home in mechanical and æsthetic arts,
they were at the same time constantly seeking employment abroad,
ransacking the earth for useful or beautiful commodities, building
cities, constructing harbours, founding colonies, introducing the arts
of life among wild nations, mining and establishing fisheries,
organising lines of land traffic, perpetually moving from place to
place, and leaving wherever they went abundant proofs of their
diligence and capacity for hard work. From Thasos in the East, where
Herodotus saw "a large mountain turned topsy-turvy by the Phœnicians
in their search for gold,"[15] to the Scilly Islands in the West,
where workings attributable to them are still to be seen, all the
metalliferous islands and coast tracts bear traces of Phœnician
industry in tunnels, adits, and air-shafts, while manufactured vessels
of various kinds in silver, bronze, and terra-cotta, together with
figures and gems of a Phœnician type, attest still more widely their
manufacturing and commercial activity.

Audacity in enterprise can certainly not be denied to the adventurous
race which, from the islands and coasts of the Eastern Mediterranean,
launched forth upon the unknown sea in fragile ships, affronted the
perils of waves and storms, and still more dreaded "monsters of the
deep,"[16] explored the recesses of the stormy Adriatic and
inhospitable Pontus, steered their perilous course amid all the islets
and rocks of the Ægean, along the iron-bound shores of Thrace, Eubœa,
and Laconia, first into the Western Mediterranean basin, and then
through the Straits of Gibraltar into the wild and boundless Atlantic,
with its mighty tides, its huge rollers, its blinding rains, and its
frequent fogs. Without a chart, without a compass, guided only in
their daring voyages by their knowledge of the stars, these bold
mariners penetrated to the shores of Scythia in one direction; to
Britain, if not even to the Baltic, in another; in a third to the
Fortunate Islands; while, in a fourth, they traversed the entire
length of the Red Sea, and entering upon the Southern Ocean, succeeded
in doubling the Cape of Storms two thousand years before Vasco di
Gama, and in effecting the circumnavigation of Africa.[17] And, wild
as the seas were with which they had to deal, they had to deal with
yet wilder men. Except in Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, and perhaps
Italy, they came in contact everywhere with savage races; they had to
enter into close relations with men treacherous, bloodthirsty,
covetous--men who were almost always thieves, who were frequently
cannibals, sometimes wreckers--who regarded foreigners as a cheap and
very delicious kind of food. The pioneers of civilisation, always and
everywhere, incur dangers from which ordinary mortals would shrink
with dismay; but the earliest pioneers, the first introducers of the
elements of culture among barbarians who had never heard of it, must
have encountered far greater peril than others from their ignorance of
the ways of savage man, and a want of those tremendous weapons of
attack and defence with which modern explorers take care to provide
themselves. Until the invention of gunpowder, the arms of civilised
men--swords, and spears, and javelins, and the like--were scarcely a
match for the cunningly devised weapons--boomerangs, and blow-pipes,
and poisoned arrows, and lassoes[18]--of the savage.

The adaptability and pliability of the Phœnicians was especially shown
in their power of obtaining the favourable regard of almost all the
peoples and nations with which they came into contact, whether
civilised or uncivilised. It is most remarkable that the Egyptians,
intolerant as they usually were of strangers, should have allowed the
Phœnicians to settle in their southern capital, Memphis, and to build
a temple and inhabit a quarter there.[19] It is also curious and
interesting that the Phœnicians should have been able to ingratiate
themselves with another most exclusive and self-sufficing people, viz.
the Jews. Hiram's friendly dealings with David and Solomon are well
known; but the /continued/ alliance between the Phœnicians and the
Israelites has attracted less attention. Solomon took wives from
Phœnicia;[20] Ahab married the daughter of Ithobalus, king of
Sidon;[21] Phœnicia furnished timber for the second Temple;[22] Isaiah
wound up his prophecy against Tyre with a consolation;[23] our Lord
found faith in the Syro-Phœnician woman;[24] in the days of Herod
Agrippa, Tyre and Sidon still desired peace with Judæa, "because their
country was nourished by the king's country."[25] And similarly Tyre
had friendly relations with Syria and Greece, with Mesopotamia and
Assyria, with Babylonia and Chaldæa. At the same time she could bend
herself to meet the wants and gain the confidence of all the varieties
of barbarians, the rude Armenians, the wild Arabs, the barbarous
tribes of northern and western Africa, the rough Iberi, the passionate
Gauls, the painted Britons, the coarse Sards, the fierce Thracians,
the filthy Scyths, the savage races of the Caucasus. Tribes so timid
and distrustful as those of Tropical Africa were lured into peaceful
and friendly relations by the artifice of a "dumb commerce,"[26] and
on every side untamed man was softened and drawn towards civilisation
by a spirit of accommodation, conciliation, and concession to
prejudices.

If the Phœnicians are to be credited with acuteness of intellect, it
must be limited to the field of practical enquiry and discovery.
Whatever may be said with regard to the extent and variety of their
literature--a subject which will be treated in another chapter--it
cannot be pretended that humanity owes to them any important conquests
of a scientific or philosophic character. Herodotus, who admires the
learning of the Persians,[27] the science of the Babylonians,[28] and
the combined learning and science of the Egyptians,[29] limits his
commendation of the Phœnicians to their skill in navigation, in
mechanics, and in works of art.[30] Had they made advances in the
abstract, or even in the mixed, sciences, in mathematics, or
astronomy, or geometry, in logic or metaphysics, either their writings
would have been preserved, or at least the Greeks would have made
acknowledgments of being indebted to them.[31] But it is only in the
field of practical matters that any such acknowledgments are made. The
Greeks allow themselves to have been indebted to the Phœnicians for
alphabetic writing, for advances in metallurgy, for improvements in
shipbuilding, and navigation, for much geographic knowledge, for
exquisite dyes, and for the manufacture of glass. There can be no
doubt that the Phœnicians were a people of great practical ability,
with an intellect quick to devise means to ends, to scheme, contrive,
and execute, and with a happy knack of perceiving what was practically
valuable in the inventions of other nations, and of appropriating them
to their own use, often with improvements upon the original idea. But
they were not possessed of any great genius or originality. They were,
on the whole, adapters rather than inventors. They owed their idea of
alphabetic writing to the Accadians,[32] their weights and measures to
Babylon,[33] their shipbuilding probably to Egypt,[34] their early
architecture to the same country,[35] their mimetic art to Assyria, to
Egypt, and to Greece. They were not poets, or painters, or sculptors,
or great architects, much less philosophers or scientists; but in the
practical arts, and even in the practical sciences, they held a high
place, in almost all of them equalling, and in some exceeding, all
their neighbours.

We should be inclined also to assign to the Phœnicians, as a special
characteristic, a peculiar capacity for business. This may be said,
indeed, to be nothing more than acuteness of intellect applied in a
particular way. To ourselves, however, it appears to be, in some sort,
a special gift. As, beyond all question, there are many persons of
extremely acute intellect who have not the slightest turn for
business, or ability for dealing with it, so we think there are
nations, to whom no one would deny high intellectual power, without
the capacity in question. In its most perfect form it has belonged but
to a small number of nations--to the Phœnicians, the Venetians, the
Genoese, the English, and the Dutch. It implies, not so much high
intellectual power, as a combination of valuable, yet not very
admirable, qualities of a lower order. Industry, perseverance,
shrewdness, quickness of perception, power of forecasting the future,
power of organisation, boldness, promptness, are among the qualities
needed, and there may be others discoverable by the skilful analyst.
All these met in the Phœnicians, and met in the proportions that were
needed for the combination to take full effect.

Whether unscrupulousness and want of good faith are rightly assigned
to the Phœnicians as characteristic traits, is, at the least, open to
doubt. The Latin writers, with whom the reproach contained in the
expression "Punica fides" originated, are scarcely to be accepted as
unprejudiced witnesses, since it is in most instances a necessity that
they should either impute "bad faith" to the opposite side, or admit
that there was "bad faith" on their own. The aspersions of an enemy
are entitled to little weight. The cry of "perfide Albion" is often
heard in the land of one of our near neighbours; but few Englishmen
will admit the justice of it. It may be urged in favour of the
Phœnicians that long-continued commercial success is impossible
without fair-dealing and honesty; that where there is commercial fair-
dealing and honesty, those qualities become part and parcel of the
national character, and determine national policy; and, further, that
in almost every one of the instances of bad faith alleged, there is at
the least a doubt, of which the accused party ought to have the
benefit. At any rate, let it be remembered that the charges made
affect the Liby-Phœnicians alone, and not the Phœnicians of Asia, with
whom we are here primarily concerned, and that we cannot safely, or
equitably, transfer to a mother-country faults which are only even
alleged against one of her colonies.

Physically, the Phœnicians appear to have resembled the Assyrians and
the Jews. They had large frames strongly made, well-developed muscles,
curled beards, and abundant hair. In their features they may have
borne a resemblance, but probably not a very strong resemblance, to
the Cypriots,[36] who were a mixed people recruited from various
quarters.[37] In complexion they belonged to the white race, but were
rather sallow than fair. Their hair was generally dark, though it may
have been sometimes red. Some have regarded the name "Phœnician" as
indicating that they were of a red or red-brown colour;[38] but it is
better to regard the appellation as having passed from the country to
its people, and as applied to the country by the Greeks on account of
the palm-trees which grew along its shores.



CHAPTER IV

THE CITIES

  Importance of the cities in Phœnicia--Their names and relative
  eminence--Cities of the first rank--Sidon--Tyre--Arvad or Aradus--
  Marathus--Gebal or Byblus--Tripolis--Cities of the second rank--
  Aphaca--Berytus--Arka--Ecdippa--Accho--Dor--Japho or Joppa--
  Ramantha or Laodicea--Fivefold division of Phœnicia.

Phœnicia, like Greece, was a country where the cities held a position
of extreme importance. The nation was not a centralised one, with a
single recognised capital, like Judæa, or Samaria, or Syria, or
Assyria, or Babylonia. It was, like Greece, a congeries of homogeneous
tribes, who had never been amalgamated into a single political entity,
and who clung fondly to the idea of separate independence. Tyre and
Sidon are often spoken of as if they were metropolitical cities; but
it may be doubted whether there was ever a time when either of them
could claim even a temporary authority over the whole country. Each,
no doubt, from time to time, exercised a sort of hegemony over a
certain number of the inferior cities; but there was no organised
confederacy, no obligation of any one city to submit to another, and
no period, as far as our knowledge extends, at which all the cities
acknowledged a single one as their mistress.[1] Between Tyre and Sidon
there was especial jealousy, and the acceptance by either of the
leadership of the other, even temporarily, was a rare fact in the
history of the nation.

According to the geographers, the cities of Phœnicia, from Laodicea in
the extreme north to Joppa at the extreme south, numbered about
twenty-five. These were Laodicea, Gabala, Balanea, Paltos; Aradus,
with its dependency Antaradus; Marathus; Simyra, Orthosia, and Arka;
Tripolis, Calamus, Trieris, and Botrys; Byblus or Gebal; Aphaca;
Berytus; Sidon, Sarepta, and Ornithonpolis; Tyre and Ecdippa; Accho
and Porphyreon; Dor and Joppa. Of the twenty-five a certain number
were, historically and politically, insignificant; for instance,
Gabala, Balanea, Paltos, Orthosia, Calamus, Trieris, Botrys, Sarepta,
Ornithonpolis, Porphyreon. Sarepta is immortalised by the memory of
its pious widow,[2] and Orthosia has a place in history from its
connection with the adventures of Trypho;[3] but the rest of the list
are little more than "geographical expressions." There remain fifteen
important cities, of which six may be placed in the first rank and
nine in the second--the six being Tyre, Sidon, Aradus, Byblus or
Gebal, Marathus, and Tripolis; the nine, Laodicea, Simyra, Arka,
Aphaca, Berytus, Ecdippa, Accho, Dor, and Joppa. It will be sufficient
in the present place to give some account of these fifteen.

There are some grounds for considering Sidon to have been the most
ancient of the Phœnician towns. In the Book of Genesis Sidon is called
"the eldest born of Canaan,"[4] and in Joshua, where Tyre is simply a
"fenced city" or fort,[5] it is "/Great/ Zidon."[6] Homer frequently
mentions it,[7] whereas he takes no notice of Tyre. Justin makes it
the first town which the Phœnicians built on arriving at the shores of
the Mediterranean.[8] The priority of Sidon in this respect was,
however, not universally acknowledged, since Tyre claims on some of
her coins to have been "the mother-city of the Sidonians,"[9] and
Marathus was also regarded as a city of the very highest
antiquity.[10] The city stood in Lat. 33º 34´ nearly, on the flat
plain between the mountains and the shore, opposite a small promontory
which projects into the sea towards the west, and is flanked towards
the north-west and north by a number of rocky islands. The modern town
of Saïda stands close upon the shore, occupying the greater part of
the peninsula and a portion of the plain on which it abuts; but the
ancient city is found to have been situated entirely in the plain, and
its most western traces are almost half a mile from the nearest point
of the present walls.[11] The modern Saïda has clustered itself about
what was the principal port of the ancient town, which lay north of
the promontory, and was well protected from winds, on the west by the
principal island, which has a length of 250 yards, and on the north by
a long range of islets and reefs, extending in a north-easterly
direction a distance of at least 600 yards. An excellent roadstead was
thus formed by nature, which art early improved into a small but
commodious harbour, a line of wall being carried out from the coast
northwards to the most easterly of the islets, and the only
unprotected side of the harbour being thus securely closed. There is
reason to believe that this work was completed anterior to the time of
Alexander,[12] and was therefore due to the Phœnicians themselves, who
were not blind to the advantages of closed harbours over open
roadsteads. They seem also to have strengthened the natural barrier
towards the north by a continuous wall of huge blocks along the reefs
and the islets, portions of which are still in existence.

Besides this excellent harbour, 500 yards long by 200 broad, Sidon
possessed on the southern side of the peninsula a second refuge for
its ships, less safe, but still more spacious. This was an oval basin,
600 yards long from north to south, and nearly 400 broad from east to
west, wholly surrounded by land on three sides, the north, the east,
and the south, but open for the space of about 200 yards towards the
west. In fine weather this harbour was probably quite as much used as
the other; it was protected from all the winds that were commonly
prevalent, and offered a long stretch of sandy shore free from
buildings on which vessels could be drawn up.

It is impossible to mark out the enceinte of the ancient town, or
indeed to emplace it with any exactitude. Only scanty and scattered
remains are left here and there between the modern city and the
mountains. There is, however, towards the south an extensive
necropolis,[13] which marks perhaps the southern limits of the city,
while towards the east the hills are penetrated by a number of
sepulchural grottoes, and tombs of various kinds, which were also
probably outside the walls. Were a northern necropolis to be
discovered, some idea would be furnished of the extent of the city;
but at present the plain has been very imperfectly examined in this
direction. It is from the southern necropolis that the remarkable
inscription was disinterred which first established beyond all
possibility of doubt the fact that the modern Saïda is the
representative of the ancient Sidon.[14]

Twenty miles to the south of Sidon was the still more important city--
the double city--of Tzur or Tyre. Tzur signifies "a rock," and at this
point of the Syrian coast (Lat. 33º 17´) there lay at a short distance
from the shore a set of rocky islets, on the largest of which the
original city seems to have been built. Indentations are so rare and
so shallow along this coast, that a maritime people naturally looked
out for littoral islands, as affording under the circumstances the
best protection against boisterous winds; and, as in the north Aradus
was early seized and occupied by Phœnician settlers, so in the south
the rock, which became the heart of Tyre, was seized, fortified,
covered with buildings, and converted from a bare stony eminence into
a town. At the same time, or not much later, a second town grew up on
the mainland opposite the isle; and the two together were long
regarded as constituting a single city. After the time of Alexander
the continental town went to decay; and the name of Palæ-Tyrus was
given to it,[15] to distinguish it from the still flourishing city on
the island.

The islands of which we have spoken formed a chain running nearly in
parallel to the coast. They were some eleven or twelve in number. The
southern extremity of the chain was formed by three, the northern by
seven, small islets.[16] Intermediate between these lay two islands of
superior size, which were ultimately converted into one by filling up
the channel between them. A further enlargement was effected by means
of substructions thrown out into the sea, probably on two sides,
towards the east and towards the south. By these means an area was
produced sufficient for the site of a considerable town. Pliny
estimated the circumference of the island Tyre at twenty-two
stades,[17] or somewhat more than two miles and a half. Modern
measurements make the actual present area one of above 600,000 square
yards.[18] The shape was an irregular trapezium, 1,400 yards along its
western face, 800 yards along its southern one, 600 along the face
towards the east, and rather more along the face towards the north-
east.

The whole town was surrounded by a lofty wall, the height of which, on
the side which faced the mainland, was, we are told, a hundred and
fifty feet.[19] Towards the south the foundations of the wall were
laid in the sea, and may still be traced.[20] They consist of huge
blocks of stone strengthened inside by a conglomerate of very hard
cement. The wall runs out from the south-eastern corner of what was
the original island, in a direction a little to the south of west,
till it reaches the line of the western coast, when it turns at a
sharp angle, and rejoins the island at its south-western extremity. At
present sea is found for some distance to the north of the wall, and
this fact has been thought to show that originally it was intended for
a pier or quay, and the space within it for a harbour;[21] but the
latest explorers are of opinion that the space was once filled up with
masonry and rubbish, being an artificial addition to the island, over
which, in the course of time, the sea has broken, and reasserted its
rights.[22]

Like Sidon, Tyre had two harbours, a northern and a southern. The
northern, which was called the "Sidonian," because it looked towards
Sidon, was situated on the east of the main island, towards the
northern end of it. On the west and south the land swept round it in a
natural curve, effectually guarding two sides; while the remaining two
were protected by art. On the north a double line of wall was carried
out in a direction a little south of east for a distance of about
three hundred yards, the space between the two lines being about a
hundred feet. The northern line acted as a sort of breakwater, the
southern as a pier. This last terminated towards the east on reaching
a ridge of natural rock, and was there met by the eastern wall of the
harbour, which ran out in a direction nearly due north for a distance
of 250 yards, following the course of two reefs, which served as its
foundation. Between the reefs was a space of about 140 feet, which was
left open, but could be closed, if necessary, by a boom or chain,
which was kept in readiness. The dimensions of this northern harbour
are thought to have been about 370 yards from north to south, by about
230 from east to west,[23] or a little short of those which have been
assigned to the northern harbour of Sidon. Concerning the southern
harbour there is considerable difference of opinion. Some, as Kenrick
and M. Bertou, place it due south of the island, and regard its
boundary as the line of submarine wall which we have already described
and regarded as constituting the southern wall of the town. Others
locate it towards the south-east, and think that it is now entirely
filled up. A canal connected the two ports, so that vessels could pass
from the one to the other.

The most remarkable of the Tyrian buildings were the royal palace,
which abutted on the southern wall of the town, and the temples
dedicated to Baal, Melkarth, Agenor, and Astarte or Ashtoreth.[24] The
probable character of the architecture of these buildings will be
hereafter considered. With respect to their emplacement, it would seem
by the most recent explorations that the temple of Baal, called by the
Greeks that of the Olympian Zeus, stood by itself on what was
originally a separate islet at the south-western corner of the
city,[25] while that of Melkarth occupied a position as nearly as
possible central,[26] and that of Agenor was placed near the point in
which the island terminates toward the north.[27] The houses of the
inhabitants were closely crowded together, and rose to the height of
several storeys.[28] There was an open space for the transaction of
business within the walls towards the east, called Eurychorus by those
Phœnicians who wrote their histories in Greek.[29] The town was full
of dyeing establishments, which made it difficult to traverse.[30] The
docks and dockyards were towards the east.

The population of the island Tyre, when it was captured by Alexander,
seems to have been about forty thousand souls.[31] As St. Malo, a city
less than one-third of the size, is known to have had at one time a
population of twelve thousand,[32] the number, though large for the
area, would seem not to be incredible.

Of Palæ-Tyrus, or the continental Tyre, no satisfactory account can be
given, since it has absolutely left no remains, and the classical
notices on the subject are exceedingly scanty. At different periods of
its history, its limits and extent probably varied greatly. Its
position was nearly opposite the island, and in the early times it
must have been, like the other coast towns, strongly fortified; but
after its capture by Alexander the walls do not seem to have been
restored, and it became an open straggling town, extending along the
shore from the river Leontes (Litany) to Ras-el-Ain, a distance of
seven miles or more. Pliny, who wrote when its boundary could still be
traced, computed the circuit of Palæ-Tyrus and the island Tyre
together at nineteen Roman miles,[33] the circuit of the island by
itself being less than three miles. Its situation, in a plain of great
fertility, at the foot of the south-western spurs of Lebanon, and near
the gorge of the Litany, was one of great beauty. Water was supplied
to it in great abundance from the copious springs of Ras-el-Ain, which
were received into a reservoir of an octagonal shape, sixty feet in
diameter, and inclosed within walls eighteen feet in height,[34]
whence they were conveyed northwards to the heart of the city by an
aqueduct, whereof a part is still remaining.

The most important city of Phœnicia towards the north was Arvad, or
Aradus. Arvad was situated, like Tyre, on a small island off the
Syrian coast, and lay in Lat. 34º 48´ nearly. It was distant from the
shore about two miles and a half. The island was even smaller than
that which formed the nucleus of Tyre, being only about 800 yards, or
less than half a mile in length, by 500 yards, or rather more than a
quarter of a mile in breadth.[35] The axis of the island was from
north-west to south-east. It was a bare rock, low and flat, without
water, and without any natural soil. The iron coast was surrounded on
three sides, the north, the west, and the south, by a number of rocks
and small islets, which fringed it like the trimming of a shawl. Its
Phœnician occupiers early converted this debatable territory, half sea
half shore, into solid land, by filling up the interstices between the
rocks with squared stones and a solid cement as hard as the rock
itself, which remains to this day.[36] The north-eastern portion,
which has a length of 150 yards by a breadth of 125, is perfectly
smooth and almost flat, but with a slight slope towards the east,
which is thought to show that it was used as a sort of dry dock, on
which to draw up the lighter vessels, for safety or for repairs.[37]
The western and southern increased the area for house-building.
Anciently, as at Tyre, the houses were built very close together, and
had several storeys,[38] for the purpose of accommodating a numerous
population. The island was wholly without natural harbour; but on the
eastern side, which faced the mainland, and was turned away from the
prevailing winds, the art and industry of the inhabitants constructed
two ports of a fair size. This was effected by carrying out from the
shore three piers at right angles into the sea, the central one to a
distance of from seventy to a hundred yards, and the other two very
nearly as far--and thus forming two rectangular basins, one on either
side of the central pier, which were guarded from winds on three
sides, and only open towards the east, a quarter from which the winds
are seldom violent, and on which the mainland, less than three miles
off, forms a protection. The construction of the central pier is
remarkable. It is formed of massive blocks of sandstone, which are
placed transversely, so that their length forms the thickness of the
pier, and their ends the wall on either side. On both sides of the
wall are quays of concrete.[39]

The line of the ancient enceinte may still be traced around the three
outer sides of the island. It is a gigantic work, composed of stones
from fifteen to eighteen feet long, placed transversely, like those of
the centre pier, and in two places still rising to the height of five
or six courses (from thirty to forty feet).[40] The blocks are laid
side by side without mortar; they are roughly squared, and arranged
generally in regular courses; but sometimes two courses for a while
take the place of one.[41] There is a want of care in the arrangement
of the blocks, joints in one course being occasionally directly over
joints in the course below it. The stones are without any bevel or
ornamentation of any kind. They have been quarried in the island
itself, and the beds of rock from which they were taken may be seen at
no great distance. At one point in the western side of the island, the
native rock itself has been cut into the shape of the wall, and made
to take the place of the squared stones for the distance of about ten
feet.[42] A moat has also been cut along the entire western side,
which, with its glacis, served apparently to protect the wall from the
fury of the waves.[43]

We know nothing of the internal arrangements of the ancient town
beyond the fact of the closeness and loftiness of the houses.
Externally Aradus depended on her possessions upon the mainland both
for water and for food. The barren rock could grow nothing, and was
moreover covered with houses. Such rainwater as fell on the island was
carefully collected and stored in tanks and reservoirs,[44] the
remains of which are still to be seen. But the ordinary supply of
water for daily consumption was derived in time of peace from the
opposite coast. When this supply was cut off by an enemy Aradus had
still one further resource. Midway in the channel between the island
and the continent there burst out at the bottom of the sea a fresh-
water spring of great strength; by confining this spring within a
hemisphere of lead to which a leathern pipe was attached the much-
needed fluid was raised to the surface and received into a vessel
moored upon the spot, whence supplies were carried to the island.[45]
The phenomenon still continues, though the modern inhabitants are too
ignorant and unskilful to profit by it.[46]

On the mainland Aradus possessed a considerable tract, and had a
number of cities subject to her. Of these Strabo enumerates six, viz.
Paltos, Balanea, Carnus--which he calls the naval station of Aradus--
Enydra, Marathus, and Simyra.[47] Marathus was the most important of
these. Its name recalls the "Brathu" of Philo-Byblius[48] and the
"Martu" of the early Babylonian inscriptions,[49] which was used as a
general term by some of the primitive monarchs almost in the sense of
"Syria." The word is still preserved in the modern "M'rith" or
"Amrith," a name attached to some extensive ruins in the plain south-
east of Aradus, which have been carefully examined by M. Renan.[50]
Marathus was an ancient Phœnician town, probably one of the most
ancient, and was always looked upon with some jealousy by the
Aradians, who ultimately destroyed it and partitioned out the
territory among their own citizens.[51] The same fate befell
Simyra,[52] a place of equal antiquity, the home probably of those
Zemarites who are coupled with the Arvadites in Genesis.[53] Simyra
appears as "Zimirra" in the Assyrian inscriptions, where it is
connected with Arka,[54] which was not far distant. Its exact site,
which was certainly south of Amrith, seems to be fixed by the name
Sumrah, which attaches to some ruins in the plain about a mile and a
half north of the Eleutherus (Nahr-el-Kebir) and within a mile of the
sea.[55] The other towns--Paltos, Balanea, Carnus,[56] and Enydra--
were in the more northern portion of the plain, as was also Antaradus,
now Tortosa, where there are considerable remains, but of a date long
subsequent to the time of Phœnician ascendancy.

Of the remaining Phœnician cities the most important seems to have
been Gebal, or Byblus. Mentioned under the name of Gubal in the
Assyrian inscriptions as early as the time of Jehu[57] (ab. B.C. 840),
and glanced at even earlier in the Hebrew records, which tell of its
inhabitants, the Giblites,[58] Gebal is found as a town of note in the
time of Alexander the Great,[59] and again in that of Pompey.[60] The
traditions of the Phœnicians themselves made it one of the most
ancient of the cities; and the historian Philo, who was a native of
the place, ascribes its foundation to Kronos or Saturn.[61] It was an
especially holy city, devoted in the early times to the worship of
Beltis,[62] and in the later to that of Adonis.[63] The position is
marked beyond all reasonable doubt by the modern Jebeïl, which retains
the original name very slightly modified, and answers completely to
the ancient descriptions. The town lies upon the coast, in Lat. 34º
10´ nearly, about halfway between Tripolis and Berytus, four miles
north of the point where the Adonis river (now the Ibrahim) empties
itself into the sea. There is a "small but well-sheltered port,"[64]
formed mainly by two curved piers which are carried out from the shore
towards the north and south, and which leave between them only a
narrow entrance. The castle occupies a commanding position on a hill
at a little distance from the shore, and has a keep built of bevelled
stones of a large size. Several of them measure from fifteen to
eighteen feet in length, and are from five to six feet thick.[65] They
were probably quarried by Giblite "stone-cutters," but placed in their
present position during the middle ages.

Tripolis, situated halfway between Byblus and Aradus, was not one of
the original Phœnician cities, but was a joint colony from the three
principal settlements, Tyre, Sidon, and Aradus.[66] The date of its
foundation, and its native Phœnician name, are unknown to us:
conjecture hovers between Hosah, Mahalliba, Uznu, and Siannu, maritime
towns of Phœnicia known to the Assyrians,[67] but unmentioned by any
Greek author. The situation was a promontory, which runs out towards
the north-west, in Lat. 34º 27´ nearly, for the distance of a mile,
and is about half a mile wide. The site is "well adapted for a haven,
as a chain of seven small islands, running out to the north-west,
affords shelter in the direction from which the most violent winds
blow."[68] The remotest of these islands is ten miles distant from the
shore.[69] We are told that the colonists who founded Tripolis did not
intermix, but had their separate quarters of the town assigned to
them, each surrounded by its own wall, and lying at some little
distance one from the other.[70] There are no present traces of this
arrangement, which seems indicative of distrust; but some remains have
been found of a wall which was carried across the isthmus on the land
side.[71] Tripolis is now Tarabolus.

Aphaca, the only inland Phœnician town of any importance, is now Afka,
and is visited by most travellers and tourists. It was situated in a
beautiful spot at the head of the Adonis river,[72] a sacred stream
fabled to run with blood once a year, at the festival which
commemorated the self-mutilation of the Nature-god Adonis. Aphaca was
a sort of Delphi, a collection of temples rather than a town. It was
dedicated especially to the worship of the Syrian goddess, Ashtoreth
or Venus, sometimes called Beltis or Baaltis, whose orgies were of so
disgracefully licentious a character that they were at last absolutely
forbidden by Constantine. At present there are no remains on the
ancient site except one or two ruins of edifices decidedly Roman in
character.[73] Nor is the gorge of the Adonis any richer in ancient
buildings. There was a time when the whole valley formed a sort of
"Holy Land,"[74] and at intervals on its course were shown "Tombs of
Adonis,"[75] analogous to the artificial "Holy Sepulchres" of many
European towns in the middle ages. All, however, have disappeared, and
the traveller looks in vain for any traces of that curious cult which
in ancient times made Aphaca and its river one of the most noted of
the holy spots of Syria and a favourite resort of pilgrims.

Twenty-three miles south of Byblus was Berytus, which disputed with
Byblus the palm of antiquity.[76] Berytus was situated on a promontory
in Lat. 33º 54´, and had a port of a fair size, protected towards the
west by a pier, which followed the line of a ridge of rocks running
out from the promontory towards the north. It was not of any
importance during the flourishing Phœnician period, but grew to
greatness under the Romans,[77] when its harbour was much improved,
and the town greatly extended.[78] By the time of Justinian it had
become the chief city of Phœnicia, and was celebrated as a school of
law and science.[79] The natural advantages of its situation have
caused it to retain a certain importance, and in modern times it has
drawn to itself almost the whole of the commerce which Europe
maintains with Syria.

Arka, or Arqa, the home of the Arkites of Genesis,[80] can never have
been a place of much consequence. It lies at a distance of four miles
from the shore, on one of the outlying hills which form the skirts of
Lebanon, in Lat. 34º 33, Long. 33º 44´ nearly. The towns nearest to it
were Orthosia, Simyra, and Tripolis. It was of sufficient consequence
to be mentioned in the Assyrian Inscriptions,[81] though not to
attract the notice of Strabo.

Ecdippa, south of Tyre, in Lat. 33º 1´, is no doubt the scriptural
Achzib,[82] which was made the northern boundary of Asher at the
division of the Holy Land among the twelve tribes. The Assyrian
monarchs speak of it under the same name, but mention it rarely, and
apparently as a dependency of Sidon.[83] The old name, in the
shortened form of "Zeb," still clings to the place.

Still further to the south, five miles from Ecdippa, and about twenty-
two miles from Tyre, lay Akko or Accho, at the northern extremity of a
wide bay, which terminates towards the south in the promontory of
Carmel. Next to the Bay of St. George, near Beyrout, this is the best
natural roadstead on the Syrian coast; and this advantage, combined
with its vicinity to the plain of Esdraelon, has given to Accho at
various periods of history a high importance, as in some sense "the
key of Syria." The Assyrians, in their wars with Palestine and Egypt,
took care to conquer and retain it.[84] When the Ptolemies became
masters of the tract between Egypt and Mount Taurus, they at once saw
its value, occupied it, strengthened its defences, and gave it the
name of Ptolemaïs. The old appellation has, however, reasserted
itself; and, as Acre, the city played an important part in the
Crusades, in the Napoleonic attempt on Egypt, and in the comparatively
recent expedition of Ibrahim Pasha. It had a small port of its own to
the south-east of the promontory on which it stood, which, like the
other ports of the ancient Phœnicia, is at the present time almost
wholly sanded up.[85] But its roadstead was of more importance than
its port, and was used by the Persians as a station for their fleet,
from which they could keep watch on Egypt.[86]

South of Accho and south of Carmel, close upon the shore, which is
here low and flat, was Dor, now Tantura, the seat of a kingdom in the
time of Joshua,[87] and allotted after its conquest to Manasseh.[88]
Here Solomon placed one of his purveyors,[89] and here the great
Assyrian monarch Tiglath-pileser II. likewise placed a "governor,"
about B.C. 732, when he reduced it.[90] Dor was one of the places
where the shell-fish which produced the purple dye were most abundant,
and remained in the hands of the Phœnicians during all the political
changes which swept over Syria and Palestine to a late period.[91] It
had fallen to ruin, however, by the time of Jerome,[92] and the
present remains are unimportant.

The extreme Phœnician city on the south was Japho or Joppa. It lay in
Lat. 32º 2´, close to the territory of Dan,[93] but continued to be
held by the Phœnicians until the time of the Maccabees,[94] when it
became Jewish. The town was situated on the slope of a low hill near
the sea, and possessed anciently a tolerable harbour, from which a
trade was carried on with Tartessus.[95] As the seaport nearest to
Jerusalem, it was naturally the chief medium of the commerce which was
carried on between the Phœnicians and the Jews. Thither, in the time
of Solomon, were brought the floats of timber cut in Lebanon for the
construction of the Temple and the royal palace; and thither, no
doubt, were conveyed "the wheat, and the barley, and the oil, and the
wine," which the Phœnicians received in return for their firs and
cedars.[96] A similar exchange of commodities was made nearly five
centuries later at the same place, when the Jews returned from the
captivity under Zerubbabel.[97] In Roman times the foundation of
Cæsaræa reduced Joppa to insignificance; yet it still, as Jaffa or
Yáfa, retains a certain amount of trade, and is famous for its palm-
groves and gardens.

Joppa towards the south was balanced by Ramantha, or Laodicea, towards
the north. Fifty miles north of Aradus and Antaradus (Tortosa), in
Lat. 35º 30´ nearly, occupying the slope of a hill facing the sea,
with chalky cliffs on either side, that, like those of Dover, whiten
the sea, and with Mount Casius in the background, lay the most
northern of all the Phœnician cities in a fertile and beautiful
territory.[98] The original appellation was, we are told,
Ramantha,[99] a name intended probably to mark the /lofty/ situation
of the place;[100] but this appellation was forced to give way to the
Greek term, Laodicea, when Seleucus Nicator, having become king of
Syria, partially rebuilt Ramantha and colonised it with Greeks.[101]
The coins of the city under the Seleucidæ show its semi-Greek, semi-
Phœnician character, having legends in both languages. One of these,
in the Phœnician character, is read as /l'Ladika am b'Canaan/, i.e.
"of Laodicea, a metropolis in Canaan," and seems to show that the city
claimed not only to be independent, but to have founded, and to hold
under its sway, a number of smaller towns.[102] It may have exercised
a dominion over the entire tract from Mount Casius to Paltos, where
the dominion of Aradus began. Laodicea is now Latakia, and is famous
for the tobacco grown in the neighbourhood. It still makes use of its
ancient port, which would be fairly commodious if it were cleared of
the sand that at present chokes it.[103]

It has been said that Phœnicia was composed of "three worlds" with
distinct characteristics;[104] but perhaps the number of the "worlds"
should be extended to five. First came that of Ramantha, reaching from
the Mons Casius to the river Badas, a distance of about fifty miles, a
remote and utterly sequestered region, into which neither Assyria nor
Egypt ever thought of penetrating. Commerce with Cyprus and southern
Asia Minor was especially open to the mariners of this region, who
could see the shores of Cyprus without difficulty on a clear day. Next
came the "world" of Aradus, reaching along the coast from the Badas to
the Eleutherus, another stretch of fifty miles, and including the
littoral islands, especially that of Ruad, on which Aradus was built.
This tract was less sequestered than the more northern one, and
contains traces of having been subjected to influences from Egypt at
an early period. The gap between Lebanon and Bargylus made the Aradian
territory accessible from the Cœlesyrian valley; and there is reason
to believe that one of the roads which Egyptian and Assyrian conquest
followed in these parts was that which passed along the coast as far
as the Eleutherus and then turned eastward and north-eastward to Emesa
(Hems) and Hamath. It must have been conquerors marching by this line
who set up their effigies at the mouth of the Nahr-el-Kelb, and those
who pursued it would naturally make a point of reducing Aradus. Thus
this second Phœnician "world" has not the isolated character of the
first, but shows marks of Assyrian, and still more of early Egyptian,
influence. The third Phœnician "world" is that of Gebal or Byblus. Its
limits would seem to be the Eleutherus on the north, and on the south
the Tamyras, which would allow it a length of a little above eighty
miles. This district, it has been said, preserved to the last days of
paganism a character which was original and well marked. Within its
limits the religious sentiment had more intensity and played a more
important part in life than elsewhere in Phœnicia. Byblus was a sort
of Phœnician Jerusalem. By their turn of mind and by the language
which they spoke, the Byblians or Giblites seem to have been, of all
the Phœnicians, those who most resembled the Hebrews. King Jehavmelek,
who probably reigned at Byblus about B.C. 400, calls himself "a just
king," and prays that he may obtain favour in the sight of God. Later
on it was at Byblus, and in the valleys of the Lebanon depending on
it, that the inhabitants celebrated those mysteries of Astarte,
together with that orgiastic worship of Adonis or Tammuz, which were
so popular in Syria during the whole of the Greco-Roman period.[105]
The fourth Phœnician "world" was that of Tyre and Sidon, beginning at
the Tamyras and ending with the promontory of Carmel. Here it was that
the Phœnician character developed especially those traits by which it
is commonly known to the world at large--a genius for commerce and
industry, a passion for the undertaking of long and perilous voyages,
an adaptability to circumstances of all kinds, and an address in
dealing with wild tribes of many different kinds which has rarely been
equalled and never exceeded. "All that we are about to say of
Phœnicia," declares the author recently quoted, "of its rapid
expansion and the influence which it exercised over the nations of the
West, must be understood especially of Tyre and Sidon. The other towns
might furnish sailors to man the Tyrian fleet or merchandise for their
cargo, but it was Sidon first and then (with even more determination
and endurance) Tyre which took the initiative and the conduct of the
movement; it was the mariners of these two towns who, with eyes fixed
on the setting sun, pushed their explorations as far as the Pillars of
Hercules, and eventually even further."[106] The last and least
important of the Phœnician "worlds" was the southern one, extending
sixty miles from Carmel to Joppa--a tract from which the Phœnician
character was well nigh trampled out by the feet of strangers ever
passing up and down the smooth and featureless region, along which lay
the recognised line of route between Syria and Mesopotamia on the one
hand, Philistia and Egypt on the other.[107]



CHAPTER V

THE COLONIES

  Circumstances which led the Phœnicians to colonise--Their colonies
  best grouped geographically--1. Colonies of the Eastern
  Mediterranean--in Cyprus, Citium, Amathus, Curium, Paphos,
  Salamis, Ammochosta, Tamisus, and Soli;--in Cilicia, Tarsus;--in
  Lycia, Phaselis;--in Rhodes, Lindus, Ialysus, Camirus;--in Crete,
  and the Cyclades;--in the Northern Egean; &c. 2. In the Central
  and Western Mediterranean--in Africa, Utica, Hippo-Zaritis, Hippo
  Regius, Carthage, Hadrumetum, Leptis Minor, Leptis Major, and
  Thapsus;--in Sicily, Motya, Eryx, Panormus, Solocis;--between 
  Sicily and Africa, Cossura, Gaulos, and Melita;--in Sardinia,
  Caralis, Nora, Sulcis, and Tharros;--in the Balearic Isles;--in
  Spain, Malaca, Sex, Abdera. 3. Outside the Straits of Gibraltar;--
  in Africa, Tingis, and Lixus; in Spain, Tartessus, Gades, and
  Belon--Summary.

The narrowness of the territory which the Phœnicians occupied the
military strength of their neighbours towards the north and towards
the south, and their own preference of maritime over agricultural
pursuits, combined to force them, as they began to increase and
multiply, to find a vent for their superfluous population in colonies.
The military strength of Philistia and Egypt barred them out from
expansion upon the south; the wild savagery of the mountain races in
Casius, northern Bargylus, and Amanus was an effectual barrier towards
the north; but before them lay the open Mediterranean, placid during
the greater portion of the year, and conducting to a hundred lands,
thinly peopled, or even unoccupied, where there was ample room for any
number of immigrants. The trade of the Phœnicians with the countries
bordering the Eastern Mediterranean must be regarded as established
long previously to the time when they began to feel cramped for space;
and thus, when that time arrived, they had no difficulty in finding
fresh localities to occupy, except such as might arise from a too
abundant amplitude of choice. Right in front of them lay, at the
distance of not more than seventy miles, visible from Casius in clear
weather,[1] the large and important island, once known as Chittim,[2]
and afterwards as Cyprus, which played so important a part in the
history of the East from the time of Sargon and Sennacherib to that of
Bragadino and Mustapha Pasha. To the right, well visible from Cyprus,
was the fertile tract of Cilicia Campestris, which led on to the rich
and picturesque regions of Pamphylia, Lycia, and Caria. From Caria
stretched out, like a string of stepping-stones between Asia and
Europe, the hundred islets of the Ægean, Cyclades, and Sporades, and
others, inviting settlers, and conducting to the large islands of
Crete and Eubœa, and the shores of Attica and the Peloponnese. It is
impossible to trace with any exactness the order in which the
Phœnician colonies were founded. A thousand incidental circumstances--
a thousand caprices--may have deranged what may be called the natural
or geographical order, and have caused the historical order to diverge
from it; but, on the whole, probably something like the geographical
order was observed; and, at any rate, it will be most convenient, in
default of sufficient data for an historical arrangement, to adopt in
the present place a geographic one, and, beginning with those nearest
to Phœnicia itself in the Eastern Mediterranean, to proceed westward
to the Straits of Gibraltar, reserving for the last those outside the
Straits on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean.

The nearest, and probably the first, region to attract Phœnician
colonies was the island of Cyprus. Cyprus lies in the corner of the
Eastern Mediterranean formed by the projection of Asia Minor from the
Syrian shore. Its mountain chains run parallel with Taurus, and it is
to Asia Minor that it presents its longer flank, while to Phœnicia it
presents merely one of its extremities. Its length from east to west
is 145 miles, its greatest width about sixty miles.[3] Two strongly
marked mountain ranges form its most salient features, the one running
close along the north coast from Cape Kormaciti to Cape S. Andreas;
the other nearly central, but nearer the south, beginning at Cape
Renaouti in the west and terminating at Cape Greco. The mountain
ranges are connected by a tract of high ground towards the centre, and
separated by two broad plains,[4] towards the east and west. The
eastern plain is the more important of the two. It extends along the
course of the Pediæus from Leucosia, or Nicosia, the present capital,
to Salamis, a distance of thirty-five miles, and is from five to
twelve miles wide. The fertility of the soil was reckoned in ancient
times to equal that of Egypt.[5] The western plain, that of Morfou, is
much smaller, and is watered by a less important river. The whole
island, when it first became known to the Phœnicians, was well
wooded.[6] Lovely glens opened upon them, as they sailed along its
southern coast, watered by clear streams from the southern
mountain-range, and shaded by thick woods of pine and cedar, the
latter of which are said to have in some cases attained a greater size
even than those of the Lebanon.[7] The range was also prolific of
valuable metals.[8] Gold and silver were found in places, but only in
small quantities; iron was yielded in considerable abundance; but the
chief supply was that of copper, which derived its name from that of
the island.[9] Other products of the island were wheat of excellent
quality; the rich Cyprian wine which retains its strength and flavour
for well nigh a century, the /henna/ dye obtained from the plant
called /copher/ or /cyprus/, the /Lawsonia alba/ of modern botany;
valuable pigments of various kinds, red, yellow, green, and amber;
hemp and flax; tar, boxwood,[10] and all the materials requisite for
shipbuilding from the heavy timbers needed for the keel to the
lightest spar and the flimsiest sail.[11]

The earliest of the Phœnician settlements in Cyprus seem to have lain
upon its southern coast. Here were Citium, Amathus, Curium, and
Paphus, the Palæ-paphus of the geographers, which have all yielded
abundant traces of a Phœnician occupation at a very distant period.
Citium, now Larnaka, was on the western side of a deep bay, which
indents the more eastern portion of the southern coast, between the
promontories of Citi and Pyla. It is sheltered from all winds except
the south-east, and continues to the present day the chief port of the
island. The Phœnician settlers improved on the natural position by the
formation of an artificial basin, enclosed within piers, the lines of
which may be traced, though the basin itself is sanded up.[12] A plain
extends for some distance inland, on which the palm-tree flourishes,
and which is capable of producing excellent crops of wheat.[13] Access
to the interior is easy; for the mountain range sinks as it proceeds
eastward, and between Citium and Dali (Idalium), on a tributary of the
Pediæus, is of small elevation. There are indications that the
Phœnicians did not confine themselves to the coast, but penetrated
into the interior, and even settled there in large numbers. Idalium,
sixteen miles north-west of Citium, and Golgi (Athiénau), ten miles
nearly due north of the same, show traces of having supported for a
considerable time a large Phœnician population,[14] and must be
regarded as outposts advanced from Citium into the mountains for
trading, and perhaps for mining purposes. Idalium (Dali) has a most
extensive Phœnician necropolis; the interments have a most archaic
character; and their Phœnician origin is indicated both by their close
resemblance to interments in Phœnicia proper and by the discovery, in
connection with them, of Phœnician inscriptions.[15] At Golgi the
remains scarcely claim so remote an antiquity. They belong to the time
when Phœnician art was dominated by a strong Egyptian influence, and
when it also begins to have a partially Hellenic character. Some
critics assign them to the sixth, or even to the fifth century,
B.C.[16]

West of Citium, also upon the south coast, and in a favourable
situation for trade with the interior, was Amathus. The name Amathus
has been connected with "Hamath;"[17] but there is no reason to
suppose that the Hamathites were Phœnicians. Amathus, which Stephen of
Byzantium calls "a most ancient Cyprian city,"[18] was probably among
the earliest of the Phœnician settlements in the island. It lay in the
bay formed by the projection of Cape Gatto from the coast, and, like
Citium, looked to the south-east. Westward and south-westward
stretched an extensive plain, fertile and well-watered, shaded by
carob and olive-trees,[19] whilst towards the north were the rich
copper mines from which the Amathusians derived much of their
prosperity. The site has yielded a considerable amount of Phœnician
remains--tombs, sarcophagi, vases, bowls, pateræ and statuettes.[20]
Many of the tombs resemble those at Idalium; others are stone chambers
deeply buried in the earth. The mimetic art shows Assyrian and
Egyptian influence, but is essentially Phœnician, and of great
interest. Further reference will be made to it in the Chapter on the
Æsthetic Art of the Phœnicians.

Still further to the west, in the centre of the bay enclosed between
the promontories of Zeugari and Boosoura, was the colony of Curium, on
a branch of the river Kuras. Curium lay wholly open to the south-
western-gales, but had a long stretch of sandy shore towards the
south-east, on which vessels could be drawn up. The town was situated
on a rocky elevation, 300 feet in height, and was further defended by
a strong wall, a large portion of which may still be traced.[21] The
richest discovery of Phœnician ornaments and objects of art that has
yet been made took place at Curium, where, in the year 1874, General
Di Cesnola happened upon a set of "Treasure Chambers" containing
several hundreds of rings, gems, necklaces, bracelets, armlets, ear-
rings, bowls, basins, jugs, pateræ, &c., in the precious metals, which
have formed the principal material for all recent disquisitions on the
true character and excellency of Phœnician art. Commencing with works
of which the probable date is the fifteenth or sixteenth century B.C.,
and descending at least as far as the best Greek period[22] (B.C. 500-
400), embracing, moreover, works which are purely Assyrian, purely
Egyptian, and purely Greek, this collection has yet so predominant a
Phœnician character as to mark Curium, notwithstanding the contrary
assertions of the Greeks themselves,[23] for a thoroughly Phœnician
town. And the history of the place confirms this view, since Curium
sided with Amathus and the Persians in the war of Onesilus.[24] No
doubt, like most of the other Phœnician cities in Cyprus, it was
Hellenised gradually; but there must have been many centuries during
which it was an emporium of Phœnician trade and a centre of Phœnician
influence.

Where the southern coast of Cyprus begins to trend to the north-west,
and a river of some size, the Bocarus or Diorizus, reaches the sea,
stood the Phœnician settlement of Paphos, founded (as was said[25]) by
Cinyras, king of Byblus. Here was one of the most celebrated of all
the temples of Astarté or Ashtoreth,[26] the Phœnician Nature-Goddess;
and here ruled for many centuries the sacerdotal class of the
Cinyridæ. The remains of the temple have been identified, and will be
described in a future chapter. They have the massive character of all
early Phœnician architecture.

Among other Phœnician settlements in Cyprus were, it is probable,
Salamis, Ammochosta (now Famagosta), Tamasus, and Soli. Salamis must
be regarded as originally Phœnician on account of the name, which
cannot be viewed as anything but another form of the Hebrew "Salem,"
the alternative name of Jerusalem.[27] Salamis lay on the eastern
coast of the island at the mouth of the main river, the Pediæus. It
occupied the centre of a large bay which looked towards Phœnicia, and
would naturally be the place where the Phœnicians would first land.
There is no natural harbour beyond that afforded by the mouth of the
Pediæus, but a harbour was easily made by throwing out piers into the
bay; and of this, which is now sanded up, the outline may be
traced.[28] There are, however, no remains, either at Salamis or in
the immediate neighbourhood, which can claim to be regarded as
Phœnician; and the glories of the city belong to the history of
Greece.

Ammochosta was situated within a few miles of Salamis, towards the
south.[29] Its first appearance in history belongs to the reign of
Esarhaddon (B.C. 680), when we find it in a list of ten Cyprian
cities, each having its own king, who acknowledged for their suzerain
the great monarch of Assyria.[30] Soon afterwards it again occurs
among the cities tributary to Asshur-bani-pal.[31] Otherwise we have
no mention of it in Phœnician times. As Famagosta it was famous in the
wars between the Venetians and the Turks.

Tamasus, or Tamassus, was an inland city, and the chief seat of the
mining operations which the Phœnicians carried on in the island in
search of copper.[32] It lay a few miles to the west of Idalium
(Dali), on the northern flank of the southern mountain chain. The
river Pediæus flowed at its feet. Like Ammochosta, it appears among
the Cyprian towns which in the seventh century B.C. were tributary to
the Assyrians.[33] The site is still insufficiently explored.

Soli lay upon the coast, in the recess of the gulf of Morfou.[34] The
fiction of its foundation by Philocyprus at the suggestion of
Solon[35] is entirely disproved by the occurrence of the name in the
Assyrian lists of Cyprian towns a century before Solon's time. Its
sympathies were with the Phœnician, and not with the Hellenic,
population of the island, as was markedly shown when it joined with
Amathus and Citium in calling to Artaxerxes for help against
Evagoras.[36] The city stood on the left bank of the river Clarius,
and covered the northern slope of a low hill detached from the main
range, extending also over the low ground at the foot of the hill to
within a short distance of the shore, where are to be seen the remains
of the ancient harbour. The soil in the neighbourhood is very rich,
and adapted for almost any kind of cultivation.[37] In the mountains
towards the south were prolific veins of copper.

The northern coast of the island between Capes Cormaciti and S.
Andreas does not seem to have attracted the Phœnicians, though there
are some who regard Lapethus and Cerynia as Phœnician settlements.[38]
It is a rock-bound shore of no very tempting aspect, behind which the
mountain range rises up steeply. Such Phœnician emigrants as held
their way along the Salaminian plain and, rounding Cape S. Andreas,
passed into the channel that separates Cyprus from the mainland, found
the coast upon their right attract them far more than that upon their
left, and formed settlements in Cilicia which ultimately became of
considerable importance. The chief of these was Tars or Tarsus,
probably the Tarshish of Genesis,[39] though not that of the later
Books, a Phœnician city, which has Phœnician characters upon its
coins, and worshipped the supreme Phœnician deity under the title of
"Baal Tars," "the Lord of Tarsus."[40] Tarsus commanded the rich
Cilician plain up to the very roots of Taurus, was watered by the
copious stream of the Cydnus, and had at its mouth a commodious
harbour. Excellent timber for shipbuilding grew on the slopes of the
hills bounding the plain, and the river afforded a ready means of
floating such timber down to the sea. Cleopatra's ships are said to
have been derived from the Cilician forests, which Antony made over to
her for the purpose.[41] Other Phœnician settlements upon the Cilician
coast were, it is probable, Soli, Celenderis, and Nagidus.

Pursuing their way westward, in search of new abodes, the emigrants
would pass along the coast, first of Pamphylia and then of Lycia. In
Pamphylia there is no settlement that can be with confidence assigned
to them; but in Lycia it would seem that they colonised Phaselis, and
perhaps other places. The mountain which rises immediately behind
Phaselis was called "Solyma;"[42] and a very little to the south was
another mountain known as "Phœnicus."[43] Somewhat further to the west
lies the cape still called Cape Phineka,[44] in which the root Phœnix
({phoinix}) is again to be detected. A large district inland was named
Cabalis or Cabalia,[45] or (compare Phœn. and Heb. /gebal/, mod. Arab.
/jebel/) the "mountain" country. Phaselis was situated on a promontory
projecting south-eastward into the Mediterranean,[46] and was reckoned
to have three harbours,[47] which are marked in the accompanying
chart. Of these the principal one was that on the western side of the
isthmus, which was formed by a stone pier carried out for more than
two hundred yards into the sea, and still to be traced under the
water.[48] The other two, which were of smaller size, lay towards the
east. The Phœnicians were probably tempted to make a settlement at the
place, partly by the three ports, partly by the abundance of excellent
timber for shipbuilding which the neighbourhood furnishes. "Between
Phaselis and Cape Avora, a little north of it," says a modern
traveller, "a belt of large and handsome pines borders the shore for
some miles."[49]

From Lycia the Asiatic coast westward and north-westward was known as
Caria; and here Phœnician settlements appear to have been numerous.
The entire country was at any rate called Phœnicé by some authors.[50]
But the circumstances do not admit of our pointing out any special
Phœnician settlements in this quarter, which early fell under almost
exclusive Greek influence. There are ample grounds, however, for
believing that the Phœnicians colonised Rhodes at the south-western
angle of Asia Minor, off the Carian coast. According to Conon,[51] the
earliest inhabitants of Rhodes were the Heliades, whom the Phœnicians
expelled. The Phœnicians themselves were at a later date expelled by
the Carians, and the Carians by the Greeks. Ergeias, however, the
native historian, declared[52] that the Phœnicians remained, at any
rate in some parts of the island, until the Greeks drove them out.
Ialysus was, he said, one of their cities. Dictys Cretensis placed
Phœnicians, not only in Ialysus, but in Camirus also.[53] It is the
conclusion of Kenrick that "the Phœnician settlement in Rhodes was the
first which introduced civilisation among the primeval inhabitants,
and that they maintained their ascendancy till the rise of the naval
power of the Carians. These new settlers reduced the Phœnicians to the
occupancy of three principal towns"--i.e. Lindus, Ialysus, and
Camirus; but "from these too they were expelled by the Dorians, or
only allowed to remain at Ialysus as the hereditary priesthood of
their native god."[54] Rhodes is an island about one-fourth the size
of Cyprus, with its axis from the north-east to the south-west. It
possesses excellent harbours, accessible from all quarters,[55] and
furnishing a secure shelter in all weathers. The fertility of the soil
is great; and the remarkable history of the island shows the
importance which attaches to it in the hands of an enterprising
people. Turkish apathy has, however, succeeded in reducing it to
insignificance.

The acquisition of Rhodes led the stream of Phœnician colonisation
onwards in two directions, south-westward and north-westward. South-
westward, it passed by way of Carpathus and Casus to Crete, and then
to Cythera; north-westward, by way of Chalcia, Telos, and Astypalæa,
to the Cyclades and Sporades. The presence of the Phœnicians in Crete
is indicated by the haven "Phœnix," where St. Paul's conductors hoped
to have wintered their ship;[56] by the town of Itanus, which was
named after a Phœnician founder,[57] and was a staple of the purple-
trade,[58] and by the existence near port Phœnix of a town called
"Araden." Leben, on the south coast, near Cape Leo, seems also to have
derived its name from the Semitic word for "lion."[59] Crete, however,
does not appear to have been occupied by the Phœnicians at more than a
few points, or for colonising so much as for trading purposes. They
used its southern ports for refitting and repairing their ships, but
did not penetrate into the interior, must less attempt to take
possession of the whole extensive territory. It was otherwise with the
smaller islands. Cythera is said to have derived its name from the
Phœnician who colonised it, and the same is also reported of
Melos.[60] Ios was, we are told, originally called Phœnicé;[61] Anaphé
had borne the name of Membliarus, after one of the companions of
Cadmus;[62] Oliarus, or Antiparos, was colonised from Sidon.[63]
Thera's earliest inhabitants were of the Phœnician race;[64] either
Phœnicians or Carians had, according to Thucydides,[65] colonised in
remote times "the greater part of the islands of the Ænean." There was
a time when probably all the Ægean islands were Phœnician possessions,
or at any rate acknowledged Phœnician influence, and Siphnus gave its
gold, its silver,[66] and its lead,[67] Cythera its shell-fish,[68]
Paros its marble, Melos its sulphur and its alum,[69] Nisyrus its
millstones,[70] and the islands generally their honey,[71] to increase
the wealth and advance the commercial interests of their Phœnician
masters.

From the Sporades and Cyclades the advance was easy to the islands of
the Northern Ægean, Lemnos, Imbrus, Thasos, and Samothrace. The
settlement of the Phœnicians in Thasos is attested by Herodotus, who
says that the Tyrian Hercules (Melkarth) was worshipped there,[72] and
ascribes to the Phœnicians extensive mining operations on the eastern
shores of the island between Ænyra and Cœnyra.[73] A Phœnician
occupation of Lemnos, Imbrus, and Samothrace is indicated by the
worship in those islands of the Cabeiri,[74] who were undoubtedly
Phœnician deities. Whether the Phœnicians passed from these islands to
the Thracian mainland, and worked the gold-mines of Mount Pangæus in
the vicinity of Philippi, may perhaps be doubtful, but such seems to
have been the belief of Strabo and Pliny.[75] Strabo also believed
that there had been a Semitic element in the population of Eubœa which
had been introduced by Cadmus;[76] and a Phœnician settlement in
Bœotia was the current tradition of the Greek writers upon primitive
times, whether historians or geographers.[77]

The further progress of the Phœnician settlements northward into the
Propontis and the Euxine is a point whereon different opinions may be
entertained. Pronectus, on the Bithynian, and Amastris, on the
Paphlagonian coast, have been numbered among the colonies of the
Phœnicians by some;[78] while others have gone so far as to ascribe to
them the colonisation of the entire countries of Bithynia,
Mariandynia, and Paphlagonia.[79] The story of the Argonauts may
fairly be held to show[80] that Phœnician enterprise early penetrated
into the stormy and inhospitable sea which washes Asia Minor upon the
north, and even reached its deepest eastern recess; but it is one
thing to sail into seas, and, landing where the natives seem friendly,
to traffic with the dwellers on them--it is quite another thing to
attempt a permanent occupation of portions of their coasts. To do so
often provokes hostility, and puts a stop to trade instead of
encouraging it. The Phœnicians may have been content to draw their
native products from the barbarous tribes of Northern Asia Minor and
Western Thrace--nay, even of Southern Scythia--without risking the
collisions that might have followed the establishment of settlements.

As with the Black Sea, so with the Adriatic, the commercial advantages
were not sufficient to tempt the Phœnicians to colonise. From Crete
and Cythera they sent their gaze afar, and fixed it midway in the
Mediterranean, at the western extremity of the eastern basin, on the
shores of Sicily, and the vast projection from the coast of North
Africa which goes forth to meet them. They knew the harbourless
character of the African coast west of Egypt, and the dangers of the
Lesser and Greater Syrtes. They knew the fertility of the Tunisian
projection, the excellence of its harbours, and the prolificness of
the large island that lay directly opposite. Here were the tracts
where they might expand freely, and which would richly repay their
occupation of them. It was before the beginning of the eleventh
century B.C.--perhaps some centuries before--that the colonisation of
North Africa by the Phœnicians was taken in hand:[81] and about the
same time, in all probability, the capes and isles about Sicily were
occupied,[82] and Phœnician influence in a little time extended over
the entire island.

In North Africa the first colony planted is said to have been Utica.
Utica was situated a little to the west of Carthage, at the mouth of
the Mejerda or Bagradas river.[83] It stood on a rocky promontory
which ran out into the sea eastward, and partially protected its
harbour. At the opposite extremity, towards the north, ran out another
promontory, the modern Ras Sidi Ali-el-Mekki, while the mouth of the
harbour, which faced to the south-east, was protected by some islands.
At present the deposits of the Mejerda have blocked up almost the
whole of this ancient port, and the rocky eminence upon which the city
stood looks down on three sides upon a broad alluvial plain, through
which the Mejerda pursues a tortuous course to the sea.[84] The
remains of the ancient town, which occupy the promontory and a
peninsula projecting from it, include a necropolis, an amphitheatre, a
theatre, a castle, the ruins of a temple, and some remains of baths;
but they have nothing about them bearing any of the characteristics of
Phœnician architecture, and belong wholly to the Roman or post-Roman
period. The neighbourhood is productive of olives, which yield an
excellent oil; and in the hills towards the south-west are veins of
lead, containing a percentage of silver, which are thought to bear
traces of having been worked at a very early date.[85]

Near Utica was founded, probably not many years later, the settlement
of Hippo-Zaritis, of which the name still seems to linger in the
modern Bizerta. Hippo-Zaritis stood on the west bank of a natural
channel, which united with the sea a considerable lagoon or salt lake,
lying south of the town. The channel was kept open by an irregular
flux and reflux, the water of the lake after the rainy season flowing
off into the sea, and that of the sea, correspondingly, in the dry
season passing into the lake.[86] At the present time the lake is
extraordinarily productive of fish,[87] and the sea outside yields
coral;[88] but otherwise the advantages of the situation are not
great.

Two degrees further to the west, on a hill overlooking the sea, and
commanding a lovely prospect over the verdant plain at its base,
watered by numerous streams, was founded the colony of Hippo Regius,
memorable as having been for five-and-thirty years the residence of
St. Augustine. The Phœnicians were probably attracted to the site by
the fertility of the soil, the unfailing supplies of water, and the
abundant timber and rich iron ore of the neighbouring mountains.[89]
Hippo Regius is now Bona, or rather has been replaced by that town,
which lies about a mile and a half north of the ancient Hippo, close
upon the coast, in the fertile tract formed by the soil brought down
by the river Seybouse. The old harbour of Hippo is filled up, and the
remains of the ancient city are scanty; but the lovely gardens and
orchards, which render Bona one of the most agreeable of Algerian
towns, sufficiently explain and justify the Phœnician choice of the
site.[90]

In the same bay with Utica, further to the south, and near its inner
recess, was founded, nearly three centuries after Utica, the most
important of all the Phœnician colonies, Carthage. The advantages of
the locality are indicated by the fact that the chief town of Northern
Africa, Tunis, has grown up within a short distance of the site. It
combined the excellences of a sheltered situation, a good soil,
defensible eminences, and harbours which a little art made all that
was to be desired in ancient times and with ancient navies. These
basins, partly natural, partly artificial, still exist;[91] but their
communication with the sea is blocked up, as also is the channel which
connected the military harbour with the harbours of commerce. The
remains of the ancient town are mostly beneath the surface of the
soil, but modern research has uncovered a portion of them, and brought
to light a certain number of ruins which belong probably to the very
earliest period. Among these are walls in the style called
"Cyclopian," built of a very hard material, and more than thirty-two
feet thick, which seem to have surrounded the ancient Byrsa or
citadel, and which are still in places sixteen feet high.[92] The
Roman walls found emplaced above these are of far inferior strength
and solidity. An extensive necropolis lies north of the ancient town,
on the coast near Cape Camart.

Another early and important Phœnician settlement in these parts was
Hadrumetum or Adrymes,[93] which seems to be represented by the modern
Soûsa. Hadrumetum lay on the eastern side of the great Tunisian
projection, near the southern extremity of a large bay which looks to
the east, and is now known as the Gulf of Hammamet. Its position was
upon the coast at the edge of the vast plain called at present the
"Sahel of Soûsa," which is sandy, but immensely productive of olive
oil. "Millions of olive-trees," it is said, "cover the tract,"[94] and
the present annual exportation amounts to 40,000 hectolitres.[95]
Ancient remains are few, but the Cothon, or circular harbour, may
still be traced, and in the necropolis, which almost wholly encircles
the town, many sepulchral chambers have been found, excavated in the
chalk, closely resembling in their arrangements those of the Phœnician
mainland.

South of Hadrumetum, at no great distance, was Leptis Minor, now
Lemta. The gulf of Hammamet terminates southwards in the promontory of
Monastir, between which and Ras Dimas is a shallow bay looking to the
north-east. Here was the Lesser Leptis, so called to distinguish it
from the larger city of the same name between the Lesser and the
Greater Syrtis; it was, however, a considerable town, as appears from
its remains. These lie along the coast for two miles and a half in
Lat. 35º 43´, and include the ruins of an aqueduct, of a theatre, of
quays, and of jetties.[96] The neighbourhood is suited for the
cultivation of the olive.

The Greater Leptis (Leptis Major) lay at a considerable distance from
the Lesser one. Midway in the low African coast which intervenes
between the Tunisian projection and the Cyrenaic one, about Long. 14º
22´ E. of Greenwich, are ruins, near a village called Lebda, which, it
is generally agreed, mark the site of this ancient city. Leptis Major
was a colony from Sidon, and occupied originally a small promontory,
which projects from the coast in a north-easterly direction, and
attains a moderate elevation above the plain at its base. Towards the
mainland it was defended by a triple line of wall still to be traced,
and on the sea-side by blocks of enormous strength, which are said to
resemble those on the western side of the island of Aradus.[97] In
Roman times the town, under the name of Neapolis,[98] attained a vast
size, and was adorned with magnificent edifices, of which there are
still numerous remains. The neighbourhood is rich in palm-groves and
olive-groves,[99] and the Cinyps region, regarded by Herodotus as the
most fertile in North Africa,[100] lies at no great distance to the
east.

Ten miles east, and a little south of Leptis Minor,[101] was Thapsus,
a small town, but one of great strength, famous as the scene of Julius
Cæsar's great victory over Cato.[102] It occupied a position close to
the promontory now known as Ras Dimas, in Lat. 35º 39´, Long. 11º 3´,
and was defended by a triple enclosure, whereof considerable remains
are still existing. The outermost of the three lines appears to have
consisted of little more than a ditch and a palisaded rampart, such as
the Romans were accustomed to throw up whenever they pitched a camp in
their wars; but the second and third were more substantial. The
second, which was about forty yards behind the first, was guarded by a
deeper ditch, from which rose a perpendicular stone wall, battlemented
at top. The third, forty yards further back, resembled the second, but
was on an enlarged scale, and the wall was twenty feet thick.[103]
Such triple enclosures are thought to be traceable in other Phœnician
settlements also;[104] but in no case are the remains so perfect as at
Thapsus. The harbour, which lay south of the town, was protected from
the prevalent northern and north-eastern winds by a huge mole or
jetty, carried out originally to a distance of 450 yards from the
shore, and still measuring 325 yards. The foundation consists of piles
driven into the sand, and placed very close together; but the
superstructure is a stone wall thirty-five feet thick, and still
rising to a height of ten feet above the surface of the water.[105]

It is probable that there were many other early Phœnician settlements
on the North African seaboard; but those already described were
certainly the most important. The fertile coast tract between Hippo
Regius and the straits is likely to have been occupied at various
points from an early period. But none of these small trading
settlements attained to any celebrity; and thus it is unnecessary to
go into particulars respecting them.

In Sicily the permanent Phœnician settlements were chiefly towards the
west and the north-west. They included Motya, Eryx, Panormus
(Palermo), and Soloeis. That the Phœnicians founded Motya, Panormus,
and Soloeis is distinctly stated by Thucydides;[106] while Eryx is
proved to have been Phœnician by its remains. Motya, situated on a
littoral island less than half a mile from the western shore, in Lat.
38º nearly, has the remains of a wall built of large stones,
uncemented, in the Phœnician manner,[107] and carried, like the
western wall of Aradus, so close to the coast as to be washed by the
waves. It is said by Diodorus to have been at one time a most
flourishing town.[108] The coins have Phœnician legends.[109]

Eryx lay about seven miles to the north-east of Motya, in a very
strong position. Mount Eryx (now Mount Giuliano), on which it was
mainly built, rises to the height of two thousand feet above the
plain,[110] and, being encircled by a strong wall, was rendered almost
impregnable. The summit was levelled and turned into a platform, on
which was raised the temple of Astarte or Venus.[111] An excellent
harbour, formed by Cape Drepanum (now Trapani), lay at its base. There
were springs of water within the walls which yielded an unfailing
supply. The walls were of great strength, and a considerable portion
of them is still standing, and attests the skill of the Phœnician
architects. The blocks in the lower courses are mostly of a large
size, some of them six feet long, or more, and bear in many cases the
well-known Phœnician mason-marks.[112] They are laid without cement,
like those of Aradus and Sidon, and recall the style of the Aradian
builders, but are at once less massive and arranged with more skill.
The breadth of the wall is about seven feet. At intervals it is
flanked by square towers projecting from it, which are of even greater
strength than the curtain between them, and which were carried up to a
greater height. The doorways in the wall are numerous, and are of a
very archaic character, being either covered in by a single long stone
lintel or else terminating in a false arch.[113] The commercial
advantages of Eryx were twofold, consisting in the produce of the sea
as well as in that of the shore. The shore is well suited for the
cultivation of the vine,[114] while the neighbouring sea yields
tunny-fish, sponges, and coral.[115]

Panormus (now Palermo) occupies a site almost unequalled by any other
Mediterranean city, a site which has conferred upon it the title of
"the happy," and has rendered it for above a thousand years the most
important place in the island. "There is no town in Europe which
enjoys a more delicious climate, none so charming to look on from a
distance, none more delightfully situated in a nest of verdure and
flowers. Its superb mountains, with their bare flanks pierced along
their base with grottoes, enclose a marvellous garden, the famous
'Shell of Gold,' in the midst of which are seen the numerous towers
and domes, the fan-like foliage of the palms, the spreading branches
of the pines, and Mount Reale on the south towering over all with its
vast mass of convents and churches."[116] The harbour lies open to the
north; but the Phœnician settlers, here as elsewhere, no doubt made
artificial ports by means of piers and moles, which have, however,
disappeared on this much-frequented site, where generation after
generation has been continually at work building and destroying.
Panormus has left us no antique remains beyond its coins, which are
abundant, and show that the native name of the settlement was
Mahanath.[117] Mahanath was situated about forty miles east of Eryx,
on the northern coast of the island.

Solus, or Soloeis, the Soluntum of the Romans (now Solanto), lay on
the eastern side of the promontory (Cape Zafferana) which shuts in the
bay of Palermo on the right. It stood on a slope at the foot of a
lofty hill, overlooking a small round port, and was fortified by a
wall of large squared blocks of stone,[118] which may be still
distinctly traced. The site has yielded sarcophagi of an unmistakably
Phœnician character,[119] and other objects of a high antiquity which
recall the Phœnician manner;[120] but the chief remains belong to the
Greco-Roman times.

The islands in the strait which separates the North African coast from
Sicily were also colonised by the Phœnicians. These were three in
number, Cossura (now Pantellaria), Gaulos (now Gozzo), and Melita (now
Malta). Cossura, the most western of the three, lay about midway in
the channel, but nearer to the African coast, from which it is distant
not more than about thirty-five miles. It is a mass of igneous rock,
which was once a volcano, and which still abounds in hot springs and
in jets of steam.[121] There was no natural harbour of any size, but
the importance of the position was such that the Phœnicians felt bound
to occupy the island, if only to prevent its occupation by others. The
soil was sterile; but the coins, which are very numerous,[122] give
reason to suppose that the rocks were in early times rich in copper.

Gaulos (now Gozzo) forms, together with Malta and some islets, an
insular group lying between the eastern part of Sicily and the Lesser
Syrtis. It is situated in Lat. 36º 2´, Long. 12º 10´ nearly, and is
distant from Sicily only about fifty miles. The colonisation of the
island by the Phœnicians, asserted by Diodorus,[123] is entirely borne
out by the remains, which include a Phœnician inscription of some
length,[124] coins with Phœnician legends,[125] and buildings,
believed to be temples, which have Phœnician characteristics.[126]
Some of the blocks of stone employed in their construction have a
length of nearly twenty feet,[127] with a width and height
proportionate; and all are put together without cement or mortar of
any kind. A conical stone of the kind known to have been used by the
Phœnicians in their worship was found in one of the temples.[128]
Gaulos had a port which was reckoned sufficiently commodious, and
which lay probably towards the south-east end of the island.

Melita, or Malta, which lies at a short distance from Gozzo, to the
south-east, is an island of more than double the size, and of far
greater importance. It possesses in La Valetta one of the best
harbours, or rather two of the best harbours, in the world. All the
navies of Europe could anchor comfortably in the "great port" to the
east of the town. The western port is smaller, but is equally well
sheltered. Malta has no natural product of much importance, unless it
be the honey, after which some think that it was named.[129] The
island is almost treeless, and the light powdery soil gives small
promise of fertility. Still, the actual produce, both in cereals and
in green crops, is large; and the oranges, especially those known as
mandarines, are of superior quality. Malta also produced, in ancient
as in modern times, the remarkable breed of small dogs[130] which is
still held in such high esteem. But the Phœnician colonisation must
have taken place rather on account of the situation and the harbour
than on account of the products.

From Sicily and North Africa the tide of emigration naturally and
easily flowed on into Sardinia, which is distant, from the former
about 150 and from the latter about 115 miles. The points chosen by
the Phœnician settlers lay in the more open and level region of the
south and the south-west, and were all enclosed within a line which
might be drawn from the coast a little east of Cagliari to the
northern extremity of the Gulf of Oristano.[131] The tract includes
some mountain groups, but consists mainly of the long and now marshy
plain, called the "Campidano," which reaches across the island from
Cagliari on the southern to Oristano on the western coast. This plain,
if drained, would be by far the most fertile part of the island; and
was in ancient times exceedingly productive in cereals, as we learn
from Diodorus.[132] The mountains west of it, especially those about
Iglesias, contain rich veins of copper and of lead, together with a
certain quantity of silver.[133] Good harbours exist at Cagliari, at
Oristano, and between the island of S. Antioco and the western shore.
It was at these points especially that the Phœnicians made their
settlements, the most important of which were Caralis (Cagliari),
Nora, Sulcis, and Tharros. Caralis, or Cagliari, the present capital,
lies at the bottom of a deep bay looking southwards, and has an
excellent harbour, sheltered in all weathers. There are no remains of
Phœnician buildings; but the neighbourhood yields abundant specimens
of Phœnician art in the shape of tombs, statuettes, vases, bottles,
and the like.[134] Caralis was probably the first of the settlements
made by the Phœnicians in Sardinia; it would attract them by its
harbour, its mines, and the fertility of its neighbourhood. From
Caralis they probably passed to Nora, which lay on the same bay to the
south-west; and from Nora they rounded the south-western promontory of
Sardinia, and established themselves on the small island now known as
the Isola di San Antioco, where they built a town which they called
Sulchis or Sulcis.[135] Sulcis has yielded votive tablets of the
Phœnician type, tombs, vases, &c.[136] The island was productive of
lead, and had an excellent harbour towards the north, and another more
open one towards the south. Finally, mid-way on the west coast, at the
northern extremity of the Gulf of Oristano, the Phœnicians occupied a
small promontory which projects into the sea southwards and there
formed a settlement which became known as Tharras or Tharros.[137]
Very extensive remains, quite unmistakably Phœnician, including tombs,
cippi, statuettes in metal and clay, weapons, and the like, have been
found on the site.[138]

The passage would have been easy from Sardinia to Corsica, which is
not more than seven miles distant from it; but Corsica seems to have
possessed no attraction for the Phœnicians proper, who were perhaps
deterred from colonising it by its unhealthiness, or by the savagery
of its inhabitants. Or they may have feared to provoke the jealousy of
the Tyrrhenians, off whose coast the island lay, and who, without
having any colonising spirit themselves, disliked the too near
approach of rivals.[139] At any rate, whatever the cause, it seems to
have been left to the Carthaginians, to bring Corsica within the range
of Phœnician influence; and even the Carthaginians did little more
than hold a few points on its shores as stations for their ships.[140]

If from Sardinia the Phœnicians ventured on an exploring voyage
westward into the open Mediterranean, a day's sail would bring them
within sight of the eastern Balearic Islands, Minorca and Majorca. The
sierra of Majorca rises to the height of between 3,000 and 4,000
feet,[141] and can be seen from a great distance. The occupation of
the islands by "the Phœnicians" is asserted by Strabo,[142] but we
cannot be sure that he does not mean Phœnicians of Africa, i.e.
Carthaginians. Still, on the whole, modern criticism inclines to the
belief that, even before the foundation of Carthage, Phœnician
colonisation had made its way into the Balearic Islands, directly,
from the Syrian coast.[143] Some resting-places between the middle
Mediterranean and Southern Spain must have been a necessity; and as
the North African coast west of Hippo offered no good harbours, it was
necessary to seek them elsewhere. Now Minorca has in Port Mahon a
harbour of almost unsurpassed excellence,[144] while in Majorca there
are fairly good ports both at Palma and at Aleudia.[145] Ivica is less
well provided, but there is one of some size, known as Pormany (i.e.
"Porta magna"), on the western side of the island, and another, much
frequented by fishing-boats,[146] on the south coast near Ibiza. The
productions of the Balearides were not, perhaps, in the early times of
much importance, since the islands are not, like Sardinia, rich in
metals, nor were the inhabitants sufficiently civilised to furnish
food supplies or native manufactures in any quantity. If, then, the
Phœnicians held them, it must have been altogether for the sake of
their harbours.

The colonies of the Mediterranean have now been, all of them, noticed,
excepting those which lay upon the south coast of Spain. Of these the
most important were Malaca (now Malaga), Sex or Sexti, and Abdera (now
Adra). Malaca is said by Strabo to have been "Phœnician in its
plan,"[147] Abdera is expressly declared by him to have been "a
Phœnician settlement,"[148] while Sexti has coins which connect it
with early Phœnician legends.[149] The mountain range above Malaca was
anciently rich in gold-mines;[150] Sexti was famous for its salt-
pans;[151] Abdera lay in the neighbourhood of productive silver-
mines.[152] These were afterwards worked from Carthagena, which was a
late Carthaginian colony, founded by Asdrubal, the uncle of Hannibal.
Malaga and Carthagena (i.e. New-Town) had well-sheltered harbours; but
the ports of Sexti and Abdera were indifferent.

Outside the Straits of Gibraltar, on the shores of the Atlantic, were
two further sets of Phœnician colonies, situated respectively in
Africa and in Spain. The most important of those in Africa were Tingis
(now Tangiers) and Lixus (now Chemmish), but besides these there were
a vast number of staples ({emporia}) without names,[153] spread along
the coast as far as Cape Non, opposite the Canary Islands. Tingis, a
second Gibraltar, lay nearly opposite that wonderful rock, but a
little west of the narrowest part of the strait. It had a temple of
the Tyrian Hercules, said to have been older than that at Gades;[154]
and its coins have Phœnician legends.[155] The town was situated on a
promontory running out to the north-east at the extremity of a
semicircular bay about four miles in width, and thus possessed a
harbour not to be despised, especially on such a coast. The country
around was at once beautiful and fertile, dotted over with palms, and
well calculated for the growth of fruit and vegetables. The Atlas
mountains rose in the background, with their picturesque summits,
while in front were seen the blue Mediterranean, with its crisp waves
merging into the wilder Atlantic, and further off the shores of Spain,
lying like a blue film on the northern horizon.[156]

While Tingis lay at the junction of the two seas, on the northern
African coast, about five miles east of Cape Spartel, Lixus was
situated on the open Atlantic, forty miles to the south of that cape,
on the West African coast, looking westward towards the ocean. The
streams from Atlas here collect into a considerable river, known now
as the Wady-el-Khous, and anciently as the Lixus.[157] The estuary of
this river, before reaching the sea, meanders through the plain of
Sidi Oueddar, from time to time returning upon itself, and forming
peninsulas, which are literally almost islands.[158] From this plain,
between two of the great bends made by the stream, rose in one place a
rocky hill; and here the Phœnicians built their town, protecting it
along the brow of the hill with a strong wall, portions of which still
remain in place.[159] The blocks are squared, carefully dressed, and
arranged in horizontal courses, without any cement. Some of them are
as much as eleven feet long by six feet or somewhat more in height.
The wall was flanked at the corners by square towers, and formed a
sort of irregular hexagon, above a mile in circumference.[160] A large
building within the walls seems to have been a temple;[161] and in it
was found one of those remarkable conical stones which are known to
have been employed in the Phœnician worship. The estuary of the river
formed a tolerably safe harbour for the Phœnician ships, and the
valley down which the river flows gave a ready access into the
interior.

In Spain, outside the Pillars of Hercules, the chief Phœnician
settlements were Tartessus, Agadir or Gades, and Belon. Tartessus has
been regarded by some as properly the name of a country rather than a
town;[162] but the statements of the Greek and Roman geographers to
the contrary are too positive to be disregarded. Tartessus was a town
in the opinions of Scymnus Chius, Strabo, Mela, Pliny, Festus Avienus,
and Pausanias,[163] who could not be, all of them, mistaken on such a
point. It was a town named from, or at any rate bearing the same name
with, an important river of southern Spain,[164] probably the
Guadalquivir. It was not Gades, for Scymnus Chius mentions both cities
as existing in his day;[165] it was not Carteia, for it lay west of
Gades, while Carteia lay east. Probably it occupied, as Strabo
thought, a small island between two arms of the Guadalquivir, and
gradually decayed as Gades rose to importance. It certainly did not
exist in Strabo's time, but five or six centuries earlier it was a
most flourishing place.[166] If it is the Tarshish of Scripture, its
prosperity and importance must have been even anterior to the time of
Solomon, whose "navy of Tarshish" brought him once in every three
years "gold, and silver, and ivory, and apes, and peacocks."[167] The
south of Spain was rich in metallic treasures, and yielded gold,
silver, copper, iron, lead, and tin;[168] trade along the west coast
of Africa would bring in the ivory and apes abundant in that region;
while the birds called in our translation of the Bible "peacocks" may
have been guinea-fowl. The country on either side of the Guadalquivir
to a considerable distance took its name from the city, being called
Tartessis.[169] It was immensely productive. "The wide plains through
which the Guadalquiver flows produced the finest wheat, yielding an
increase of a hundredfold; the oil and the wine, the growth of the
hills, were equally distinguished for their excellence. The wood was
not less remarkable for its fineness than in modern times, and had a
native colour beautiful without dye."[170] Nor were the neighbouring
sea and stream less bountiful. The tunny was caught in large
quantities off the coast, shell-fish were abundant and of unusual
size,[171] while huge eels were sometimes taken by the fishermen,
which, when salted, formed an article of commerce, and were reckoned a
delicacy at Athenian tables.[172]

Gades is said to have been founded by colonists from Tyre a few years
anterior to the foundation of Utica by the same people.[173] Utica, as
we have seen, dated from the twelfth century before Christ. The site
of Gades combined all the advantages that the Phœnicians desired for
their colonies. Near the mouth of the Guadalete there detaches itself
from the coast of Spain an island eleven miles in length, known now as
the "Isla de Leon," which is separated from the mainland for half its
length by a narrow but navigable channel, while to this there succeeds
on the north an ample bay, divided into two portions, a northern and a
southern.[174] The southern, or interior recess, is completely
sheltered from all winds; the northern lies open to the west, but is
so full of creeks, coves, and estuaries as to offer a succession of
fairly good ports, one or other of which would always be accessible.
The southern half of the island is from one to four miles broad; but
the northern consists of a long spit of land running out to the north-
west, in places not more than a furlong in width, but expanding at its
northern extremity to a breadth of nearly two miles. The long isthmus,
and the peninsula in which it ends, have been compared to the stalk
and blossom of a flower.[175] The flower was the ancient Gades, the
modern Cadiz. The Phœnician occupation of the site is witnessed to by
Strabo, Diodorus, Scymnus Chius, Mela, Pliny, Velleius Paterculus,
Ælian and Arrian,[176] and is further evidenced by the numerous coins
which bear the legend of "Agadir" in Phœnician characters.[177] But
the place itself retains no traces of the Phœnician occupation. The
famous temple of Melkarth, with its two bronze pillars in front
bearing inscriptions, has wholly perished, as have all other vestiges
of the ancient buildings. This is the result of the continuous
occupation of the site, which has been built on successively by
Phœnicians, Carthaginians, Romans, Vandals, Moors, and Spaniards. The
space is somewhat confined, and the houses in ancient times were, we
are told, closely crowded together,[178] as they were at Aradus and
Tyre. But the advantages of the harbour and the productiveness of the
vicinity more than made up for this inconvenience. Gades may have
been, as Cadiz is now said to be, "a mere silver plate set down upon
the edge of the sea,"[179] but it was the natural centre of an
enormous traffic. It had easy access by the valley of a large stream
to the interior with its rich mineral and vegetable products; it had
the command of two seas, the Atlantic and the Mediterranean; it
trained its sailors to affront greater perils than any which the
Mediterranean offers; and it enjoyed naturally by its position an
almost exclusive commerce with the Northern Atlantic, with the western
coasts of Spain and Gaul, with Britain, North Germany, and the Baltic.

Compared with Gades and Tartessus, Belon was an insignificant
settlement. Its name[180] and coins[181] mark it as Phœnician, but it
was not possessed of any special advantages of situation. The modern
Bolonia, a little south of Cadiz, is thought to mark the site.[182]

We have reached now the limits of Phœnician colonisation towards the
West. While their trade was carried, especially from Gades, into
Luisitania and Gallæcia on the one hand, and into North-western Africa
on the other, reaching onward past these districts to Gaul and
Britain, to the Senegal and Gambia, possibly to the Baltic and the
Fortunate Islands, the range of their settlements was more
circumscribed. As, towards the north-east, though their trade embraced
the regions of Colchis and Thrace, of the Tauric Chersonese, and
Southern Scythia, their settlements were limited to the Ægean and
perhaps the Propontis, so westward they seem to have contented
themselves with occupying a few points of vantage on the Spanish and
West African coasts, at no great distance from the Straits, and from
these stations to have sent out their commercial navies to sweep the
seas and gather in the products of the lands which lay at a greater
distance. The actual extent of their trade will be considered in a
later chapter. We have been here concerned only with their permanent
settlements or colonies. These, it has been seen, extended from the
Syrian coast to Cyprus, Cilicia, Rhodes, Crete, the islands and shores
of the Ægean and Propontis, the coasts of Sicily, Sardinia, and North
Africa, the Balearic Islands, Southern Spain, and North-western Africa
as far south as Cape Non. The colonisation was not so continuous as
the Greek, nor was it so extensive in one direction,[183] but on the
whole it was wider, and it was far bolder and more adventurous. The
Greeks, as a general rule, made their advances by slow degrees,
stealing on from point to point, and having always friendly cities
near at hand, like an army that rests on its supports. The Phœnicians
left long intervals of space between one settlement and another,
boldly planted them on barbarous shores, where they had nothing to
rely on but themselves, and carried them into regions where the
natives were in a state of almost savagery. The commercial motive was
predominant with them, and gave them the courage to plunge into wild
seas and venture themselves among even wilder men. With the Greeks the
motive was generally political, and a safe home was sought, where
social and civil life might have free scope for quiet development.



CHAPTER VI

ARCHITECTURE

  Origin of the architecture in rock dwellings--Second style, a
  combination of the native rock with the ordinary wall--Later on,
  the use of the native rock, discarded--Employment of huge blocks
  of stone in the early walls--Absence of cement--Bevelling--
  Occurrence of Cyclopian walls--Several architectural members
  comprised in one block--Phœnician shrines--The Maabed and other
  shrines at Amrith--Phœnician temples--Temple of Paphos--Adjuncts
  to temples--Museum of Golgi--Treasure chambers of Curium--Walls of
  Phœnician towns--Phœnician tombs--Excavated chambers--Chambers
  built of masonry--Groups of chambers--Colonnaded tomb--Sepulchral
  monuments--The Burdj-el-Bezzâk--The Kabr Hiram--The two Méghâzil--
  Tomb with protected entrance--Phœnician ornamentation--Pillars and
  their capitals--Cornices and mouldings--Pavements in mosaic and
  alabaster--False arches--Summary.

The architecture of the Phœnicians began with the fashioning of the
native rock--so abundant in all parts of the country where they had
settled themselves--into dwellings, temples, and tombs. The calcareous
limestone, which is the chief geological formation along the Syrian
coast, is worked with great ease; and it contains numerous fissures
and caverns,[1] which a very moderate amount of labour and skill is
capable of converting into fairly comfortable dwelling-places. It is
probable that the first settlers found a refuge for a time in these
natural grottos, which after a while they proceeded to improve and
enlarge, thus obtaining a practical power of dealing with the
material, and an experimental knowledge of its advantages and defects.
But it was not long before these simple dwellings ceased to content
them, and they were seized with an ambition to construct more
elaborate edifices--edifices such as they must have seen in the lands
through which they had passed on their way from the shores of the
Persian Gulf to the seaboard of the Mediterranean. They could not at
once, however, divest themselves of their acquired habits, and
consequently, their earliest buildings continued to have, in part, the
character of rock dwellings, while in part they were constructions of
the more ordinary and regular type. The remains of a dwelling-house at
Amrith,[2] the ancient Marathus, offer a remarkable example of this
intermixture of styles. The rock has been cut away so as to leave
standing two parallel walls 33 yards long, 19 feet high, and 2 1/2
feet thick, which are united by transverse party-walls formed in the
same way.[3] Windows and doorways are cut in the walls, some square at
top, some arched. At the two ends the main walls were united partly by
the native rock, partly by masonry. The northern wall was built of
masonry from the very foundation, the southern consisted for a portion
of its height of the native rock, while above that were several
courses of stones carrying it up further. At Aradus and at Sidon,
similarly, the town walls are formed in many places of native rock,
squared and smoothed, up to a certain height, after which courses of
stone succeed each other in the ordinary fashion. It is as if the
Phœnician builders could not break themselves of an inveterate habit,
and rather than disuse it entirely submitted to an intermixture which
was not without a certain amount of awkwardness.

Another striking example of the mixed system is found at a little
distance from Amrith, in the case of a building which appears to have
been a shrine, tabernacle, or sanctuary. The site is a rocky platform,
about a mile from the shore. Here the rock has been cut away to a
depth varying from three to six yards, and a rectangular court has
been formed, 180 feet long by 156 feet wide, in the centre of which
has been left a single block of the stone, still of one piece with the
court, which rises to a height of ten feet, and forms the basis or
pedestal of the shrine itself.[4] The shrine is built of a certain
number of large blocks, which have been quarried and brought to the
spot; it has a stone roof with an entablature, and attains an
elevation above the court of not less than twenty-seven feet. The
dimensions of the shrine are small, not much exceeding seventeen feet
each way.[5]

From constructions of this mixed character the transition was easy to
buildings composed entirely of detached stones put together in the
ordinary manner. Here, what is chiefly remarkable in the Phœnician
architecture is the tendency to employ, especially for the foundations
and lower courses of buildings, enormous blocks. When the immovable
native rock is no longer available, the resource is to make use of
vast masses of stone, as nearly immovable as possible. The most noted
example is that of the substructions which supported the platform
whereon stood the Temple of Jerusalem, which was the work of the
Phœnician builders whom Hiram lent to Solomon.[6] These substructions,
laid bare at their base by the excavations of the Palestine
Exploration Fund, are found to consist of blocks measuring from
fifteen to twenty-five feet in length, and from ten to twelve feet in
height. The width of the blocks at the angles of the wall, where alone
it can be measured, is from twelve to eighteen feet. At the south-west
angle no fewer than thirty-one courses of this massive character have
been counted by the recent explorers, who estimate the weight of the
largest block at something above a hundred tons![7]

A similar method of construction is found to have prevailed at Tyre,
at Sidon, at Aradus, at Byblus, at Leptis Major, at Eryx, at Motya, at
Gaulos, and at Lixus on the West African coast. The blocks employed do
not reach the size of the largest discovered at Jerusalem, but still
are of dimensions greatly exceeding those of most builders, varying,
as they do, from six feet to twenty feet in length, and being often as
much as seven or eight feet in breadth and height. As the building
rises, the stones diminish in size, and the upper courses are often in
no way remarkable. Stones of various sizes are used, and often the
courses are not regular, but one runs into another. A tower in the
wall of Eryx is a good specimen of this kind of construction.[8]

Where the stones are small, mortar has been employed by the builders,
but where they are of a large size, they are merely laid side by side
in rows or courses, without mortar or cement of any kind, and remain
in place through their own mass and weight. In the earliest style of
building the blocks are simply squared,[9] and the wall composed of
them presents a flat and level surface, or one only broken by small
and casual irregularities; but, when their ideas became more advanced,
the Phœnicians preferred that style of masonry which is commonly
regarded as peculiarly, if not exclusively, theirs[10]--the employment
of large blocks with deeply bevelled edges. The bevel is a depression
round the entire side of the stone, which faces outwards, and may be
effected either by a sloping cut which removes the right-angle from
the edge, or by two cuts, one perpendicular and the other horizontal,
which take out from the edge a rectangular bar or plinth. The
Phœnician bevelling is of this latter kind, and is generally
accompanied by an artificial roughening of the surface inside the
bevel, which offers a strong contrast to the smooth and even surface
of the bevel itself.[11] The style is highly ornamental and effective,
particularly where a large space of wall has to be presented to the
eye, unbroken by door or window.[12]

Occasionally, but very rarely, and only (so far as appears) in their
remoter dependencies, the Phœnicians constructed their buildings in
the rude and irregular way, which has been called Cyclopian, employing
unhewn polygonal blocks of various sizes, and fitting them roughly
together. The temples discovered in Malta and Gozzo have masonry of
this description.[13]

A peculiarity in Phœnician architecture, connected with the preference
for enormous blocks over stones of a moderate size, is the frequent
combination in a single mass of distinct architectural members; for
instance, of the shaft and capital of pillars, of entire pediments
with a portion of the wall below them, and of the walls of monuments
with the cornice and architrave. M. Renan has made some strong remarks
on this idiosyncrasy. "In the Grecian style," he says, "the beauty of
the wall is a main object with the architect, and the wall derives its
beauty from the divisions between the stones, which observe
symmetrical laws, and are in agreement with the general lines of the
edifice. In a style of this kind the stones of a wall have, all of
them, the same dimension, and this dimension is determined by the
general plan of the building; or else, as in the kind of work which is
called 'pseud-isodomic,' the very irregularity of the courses is
governed by a law of symmetry. The stones of the architrave, the
metopes, the triglyphs, are, all of them, separate blocks, even when
it would have been perfectly easy to have included in a single block
all these various members. Such facts, as one observes frequently in
Syria, where three or four architectural members are brought out from
a single block, would have appeared to the Greeks monstrous, since
they are the negation of all logic."[14]

In cannot be denied that the habit of preferring large to small
blocks, even in monuments of a very moderate size, involved the
Phœnician architects in awkwardnesses and anomalies, which offend a
cultivated taste; but it should be remembered, on the other hand, that
massiveness in the material conduces greatly to stability, and that,
in lands where earthquakes are frequent, as they are along all the
Mediterranean shores, not many monuments would have survived the lapse
of three thousand years had the material employed been of a less
substantial and solid character.

Among the Phœnician constructions, of which it is possible to give
some account at the present day, without drawing greatly on the
imagination, are their shrines, their temples, the walls of their
towns, and, above all, their tombs. Recent researches in Phœnicia
Proper, in Cyprus, Sicily, Africa, and the smaller Mediterranean
islands, have brought to light numerous remains previously unknown;
the few previously known remains have been carefully examined,
measured, and in some cases photographed; and the results have been
made accessible to the student in numerous well-illustrated
publications. When Movers and Kenrick published their valuable works
on the history of Phœnicia, and the general characteristics of the
Phœnician people, it was quite impossible to do more than form
conjectures concerning their architecture from a few coins, and a few
descriptions in ancient writers. It is now a matter of comparatively
little difficulty to set before the public descriptions and
representations which, if they still leave something to be desired in
the way of completeness, are accurate, so far as they go, and will
give a tolerably fair idea of the architectural genius of the people.

One very complete and two ruined shrines have been found in Phœnicia
Proper, in positions and of a character which, in the judgment of the
best antiquaries, mark them as the work of the ancient people. All
these are situated on the mainland, near the site of Marathus, which
lay nearly opposite the island of Ruad, the ancient Aradus. The shrine
which is complete, or almost complete, bears the name of "the Maabed"
or "Temple." Its central position, in the middle of an excavated
court, and its mixed construction, partly of native rock and partly of
quarried stone, have been already described. It remains to give an
account of the shrine or tabernacle itself.[15] This is emplaced upon
the mass of rock left to receive it midway in the court, and is a sort
of cell, closed in on three sides by walls, and open on one side,
towards the north. The cell is formed of four quarried blocks, which
are laid one over the other. These are nearly of the same size, and
similarly shaped, each of them enclosing the cell on three sides,
towards the east, the south, and the west. The fourth, which is larger
than any of the others, constitutes the roof. It is a massive stone,
carefully cut, which projects considerably in front of the rest of the
building, and is ornamented towards the top with a cornice and string-
course, extending along the four sides.[16] Internally the roof is
scooped into a sort of shallow vault. The height of the shrine proper
is about seventeen feet, and the elevation of the entire structure
above the court in which it stands appears to be about twenty-seven
feet. M. Renan conjectures that the projecting portion of the roof had
originally the support of two pillars, which may have been either of
wood, of stone, or of metal, and notes that there are two holes in the
basement stone, into which the bottoms of the pillars were probably
inserted.[17] He imagines that the court was once enclosed completely
by the construction of a wall at its northern end, and that the water
from a spring, which still rises within the enclosure, was allowed to
overflow the entire space, so that the shrine looked down upon a basin
or shallow lake and glassed itself in the waters.[18] An image of a
deity may have stood in the cell under the roof, dimly visible to the
worshipper between the two porch pillars.

The two ruined tabernacles lie at no great distance from the complete
one, which has just been described. One of them is so injured that its
plan is irrecoverable; but M. Renan carefully collected and measured
the fragments of the other, and thus obtained sufficient data for its
restoration.[19] It was, he believes, a monolithic chamber, with a
roof slightly vaulted, like that of the /Maabed/, having a length of
eight feet, a breadth of five, and a height of about ten feet, and
ornamented externally with a very peculiar cornice. This consisted of
a series of carvings, representing the fore part of an uræus or
basilisk serpent, uprearing itself against the wall of the shrine,
which were continued along the entire front of the chamber. There was
also an internal ornamentation of the roof, consisting of a winged
circle of an Egyptian character--a favourite subject with the
Phœnician artists[20]--the circle having an uræus erect on either side
of it, and also of another winged figure which appeared to represent
an eagle.[21] The monolithic chamber was emplaced upon a block of
stone, ten feet in length and breadth, and six feet in height, which
itself stood upon a much smaller stone, and overhung it on all sides.
A flight of six steps, cut in the upper block at either side, gave
access to the chamber, which, however, as it stood in a pool of water,
must have been approached by a boat. The entire height of the shrine
above the water must have been about eighteen feet.

Some other ruined shrines have been found in the more distant of the
Phœnician settlements, and representations of them are common upon the
/stelæ/, set up in temples as votive offerings. On these last the
uræus cornice is frequently repeated, and the figure of a goddess
sometimes appears, standing between the pillars which support the
front of the shrine.[22] There is a decided resemblance between the
Phœnician shrines and the small Egyptian temples, which have been
called /mammeisi/, the chief difference being that the latter are for
the most part peristylar.[23] M. Renan says of the /Maabed/, or main
shrine at Amrith:--"L'aspect général de l'édifice est Egyptian, mais
avec une certaine part d'originalité. Le bandeau et la corniche sur
les quatre côtés de la stalle supériere en sont le seul ornement.
Cette simplicité, cette sévérité de style, jointes à l'idée de force
et de puissance qu'éveillent les dimensions énormes des matériaux
employés, sont des caractères que nous avons déjà signalés dans les
monumens funéraires d'Amrith."[24]

From the shrines of the Phœnicians we may now pass to their temples,
of which, however, the remains are, unfortunately, exceedingly scanty.
Of real temples, as distinct from shrines, Phœnicia Proper does not
present to us so much as a single specimen. To obtain any idea of
them, we must quit the mother country, and betake ourselves to the
colonies, especially to those island colonies which have been less
subjected than the mainland to the destructive ravages of barbarous
conquerors, and the iconoclasm of fanatical populations. It is
especially in Cyprus that we meet with extensive remains, which, if
not so instructive as might have been wished, yet give us some
important and interesting information.

The temple of Paphos, according to the measurements of General Di
Cesnola,[25] was a rectangular building, 221 feet long by 167 feet
wide, built along its lower corners of large blocks of stone, but
probably continued above in an inferior material, either wood or
unbaked brick.[26] The four corner-stones are still standing in their
proper places, and give the dimensions without a possibility of
mistake. Nothing is known of the internal arrangements, unless we
attach credit to the views of the savant Gerhard, who, in the early
years of the present century, constructed a plan from the reports of
travellers, in which he divided the building into a nave and two
aisles, with an ante-chapel in front, and a sacrarium at the further
extremity.[27] M. Gerhard also added, beyond the sacrarium, an apse,
of which General Di Cesnola found no traces, but which may possibly
have disappeared in the course of the sixty years which separated the
observations of M. Gerhard's informants from the researches of the
later traveller. The arrangement into a nave and two aisles is, to a
certain extent, confirmed by some of the later Cyprian coins, which
certainly represent Cyprian temples, and probably the temple of
Paphos.[28] The floor of the temple was, in part at any rate, covered
with mosaic.[29]

This large building, which extended over an area of 36,800 square
feet, was emplaced within a sacred court, surrounded by a /peribolus/,
or wall of enclosure, built of even larger blocks than the temple
itself, and entered by at least one huge doorway. The width of this
entrance, situated near a corner of the western wall, was nearly
eighteen feet.[30] On one side of it were found still fixed in the
wall the sockets for the bolts on which the door swung, in length six
inches, and of proportionate width and depth. The peribolus was
rectangular, like the temple, and was built in lines parallel to it.
The longer sides measured 690 and the shorter 530 feet. One block,
which was of blue granite and must have come either from Asia Minor or
from Egypt, measured fifteen feet ten inches in length, with a width
of seven feet eleven inches, and a depth of two feet five inches.[31]
It is thought that the court was probably surrounded by a colonnade or
cloister,[32] though no traces have been at present observed either of
the pillars which must have supported such a cloister or of the
rafters which must have formed its roof. Ponds,[33] fountains,
shrubberies, gardens, groves of trees, probably covered the open space
between the cloister and the temple, while well-shaded walks led
across it from the gates of the enclosure to those of the sanctuary.

If we allow ourselves to indulge our fancy for a brief space, and to
complete the temple according to the idea which the coins above
represented naturally suggest, we may suppose that it did, in fact,
consist of a nave, two aisles, and a cell, or "holy of holies," the
nave being of superior height to the aisles, and rising in front into
a handsome façade, like the western end of a cathedral flanked by
towers. Through the open doorway between the towers might be seen
dimly the sacred cone or pillar which was emblematic of deity; on
either side the eye caught the ends of the aisles, not more than half
the height of the towers, and each crowned with a strongly projecting
cornice, perhaps ornamented with a row of uræi. In front of the two
aisles, standing by themselves, were twin columns, like Jachin and
Boaz before the Temple of Solomon. The aisles were certainly roofed:
whether the nave also was covered in, or whether, like the Greek
hypæthral temples, it lay open to the blue vault of heaven, is perhaps
doubtful. The walls of the buildings, after a few courses of hewn
stone, were probably of wood, perhaps of cedar, enriched with the
precious metals, and the pavement was adorned with a mosaic of many
colours, "white, yellow, red, brown, and rose."[34] Outside the temple
was a mass of verdure. "In the sacred precinct, and in its
dependencies, all breathed of voluptuousness, all spoke to the senses.
The air of the place was full of perfumes, full of soft and caressing
sounds. There was the murmur of rills which flowed over a carpet of
flowers; there was, in the foliage above, the song of the nightingale,
and the prolonged and tender cooing of the dove; there were, in the
groves around, the tones of the flute, the instrument which sounds the
call to pleasure, and summons to the banquet chamber the festive
procession and the bridal train. Beneath the shelter of tents, or of
light booths with walls formed by the skilful interlacing of a green
mass of boughs, through which the myrtle and the laurel spread their
odours, dwelt the fair slaves of the goddess, those whom Pindar
called, in the drinking-song which he composed for Theoxenus of
Corinth, 'the handmaids of persuasion.'"[35] Here and there in the
precincts, sacred processions took their prescribed way; ablutions
were performed; victims led up to the temple; votive offerings hung on
the trees; festal dances, it may be, performed; while in the cloister
which skirted the peribolus, dealers in shrines and images chaffered
with their customers, erotic poets sang their lays, lovers whispered,
fortune-tellers plied their trade, and a throng of pilgrims walked
lazily along, or sat on the ground, breathing in the soft, moist air,
feasting their eyes upon the beauty of upspringing fountain and
flowering shrub, and lofty tree, while their ears drank in the
cadences of the falling waters, the song of the birds, and the gay
music which floated lightly on the summer breeze.

Phœnician temples had sometimes adjuncts, as cathedrals have their
chapter-houses and muniment rooms, which were at once interesting and
important. There has been discovered at Athiénau in Cyprus--the
supposed site of Golgi--a ruined edifice, which some have taken for a
temple,[36] but which appears to have been rather a repository for
votive offerings, a sort of ecclesiastical museum. A picture of the
edifice, as he conceives it to have stood in its original condition,
has been drawn by one of its earliest visitants. "The building," he
says,[37] "was constructed of sun-dried bricks, forming four walls,
the base of which rested upon a substruction of solid stone-work. The
walls were covered, as are the houses of the Cypriot peasants of
to-day, with a stucco which was either white or coloured, and which
was impenetrable by rain. Wooden pillars with stone capitals supported
internally a pointed roof, which sloped at a low angle. It formed thus
a sort of terrace, like the roofs that we see in Cyprus at the present
day. This roof was composed of a number of wooden rafters placed very
near each other, above which was spread a layer of rushes and coarse
mats, covered with a thick bed of earth well pressed together, equally
effective against the entrance of moisture and against the sun's rays.
Externally the building must have presented a very simple appearance.
In the interior, which received no light except from the wide doorways
in the walls, an immovable and silent crowd of figures in stone, with
features and garments made more striking by the employment of paint,
surrounded, as with a perpetual worship, the mystic cone. Stone lamps,
shaped like diminutive temples, illumined in the corners the grinning
/ex-votos/ which hung upon the walls, and the curious pictures with
which they were accompanied. Grotesque bas-reliefs adorned the circuit
of the edifice, where the slanting light was reflected from the white
and polished pavement-stones."[38] In length and breadth the chamber
measured sixty feet by thirty; the thickness of the basement wall was
three feet.[39] Midway between the side walls stood three rows of
large square pedestals--regularly spaced, and dividing the interior
into four vistas or avenues, which some critics regard as bases for
statues, and some as supports for the pillars which sustained the
roof.[40] Two stone capitals of pillars were found within the area of
the chamber; and it is conjectured that the entire disappearance of
the shafts may be accounted for by their having been of wood,[41] the
employment of wooden shafts with stone bases and capitals being common
in Cyprus at the present time.[42] Against each of the four walls was
a row of pedestals touching each other, which had certainly been bases
for statues, since the statues were found lying, mostly broken, in
front of them. The figures varied greatly in size, some being
colossal, others mere statuettes. Most probably all were votive
offerings, presented by those who imagined that they had been helped
by the god of the temple to which the chamber belonged, as an
indication of their gratitude. The number of pedestals found along one
of the walls was seventy-two,[43] and the original number must have
been at least three times as great.

Another Cyprian temple, situated at Curium, not far from Paphos,
contained a very remarkable crypt, which appears to have been used as
a treasure-house.[44] It was entered by means of a flight of steps
which conducted to a low and narrow passage cut in the rock, and
giving access to a set of three similar semi-circular chambers,
excavated side by side, and separated one from another by doors.
Beyond the third of these, and at right angles to it, was a fourth
somewhat smaller chamber, which gave upon a second passage that it was
found impossible to explore.[45] The three principal chambers were
fourteen feet six inches in height, twenty-three feet long, and
twenty-one feet broad. The fourth was a little smaller,[46] and shaped
somewhat irregularly. All contained plate and jewels of extraordinary
richness, and often of rare workmanship. "The treasure found," says M.
Perrot, "surpassed all expectation, and even all hope. Never had such
a discovery been made of such a collection of precious articles, where
the material was of the richest, and the specimens of different styles
most curious. There were many bracelets of massive gold, and among
them two which weighed a pound apiece, and several others of a weight
not much short of this. Gold was met with in profusion under all
manner of forms--finger-rings, ear-rings, amulets, flasks, small
bottles, hair-pins, heavy necklaces. Silver was found in even greater
abundance, both in ornaments and in vessels; besides which there were
articles in electrum, which is an amalgam of silver with gold. Among
the stones met with were rock-crystals, carnelians, onyxes, agates,
and other hard stones of every variety; and further there were paste
jewels, cylinders in soft stone, statuettes in burnt clay, earthen
vases, and also many objects in bronze, as lamps, tripods, candelabra,
chairs, vases, arms, &c. &c. A certain amount of order reigned in the
repository. The precious objects in gold were collected together
principally in the first chamber. The second contained the silver
vessels, which were arranged along a sort of shelf cut in the rock, at
the height of about eight inches above the floor. Unfortunately the
oxydation of these vessels had proceeded to such lengths, that only a
very small number could be extracted from the mass, which for the most
part crumbled into dust at the touch of a finger. The third chamber
held lamps and fibulæ in bronze, vases in alabaster, and, above all,
the groups and vessels modelled in clay; while the fourth was the
repository of the utensils in bronze, and of a certain number which
were either in copper or in iron. In the further passage, which was
not completely explored, there were nevertheless found seven kettles
in bronze."[47]

In the construction of the walls of their towns, especially of those
which were the most ancient, the feature which is most striking at
first sight is that on which some remarks have already been made, the
attachment of the lower portion of the wall to the soil from which the
wall springs. At Sidon, at Aradus, and at Semar-Gebeil, the /enceinte/
which protected the town consisted, up to the height of ten or twelve
feet, of native rock, cut to a perpendicular face, upon which were
emplaced several courses of hewn stone. The principle adopted was to
utilise the rock as far as possible, and then to supplement what was
wanting by a superstructure of masonry. Large blocks of stone, shaped
to fit the upper surface of the rock, were laid upon it, generally
endways, that is, with their smallest surface outwards, their length
forming the thickness of the wall, which was sometimes as much as
fifteen or twenty feet.[48] The massive blocks, once placed, were
almost immovable, and it was considered enough to lay them side by
side, without clamps or mortar, since their own weight kept them in
place. It was not thought of much consequence whether the joints of
the courses coincided or not; though care was taken that, if a
coincidence occurred in two courses, it should not be repeated in the
third.[49] The elevation of walls does not seem to have often exceeded
from thirty to forty feet, though Diodorus makes the walls of Carthage
sixty feet high,[50] and Arrian gives to the wall of Tyre which faced
the continent the extraordinary height of a hundred and fifty
feet.[51]

If we may generalise from the most perfect specimens of Phœnician
town-walls that are still fairly traceable, as those of Eryx and
Lixus,[52] we may lay it down, that such walls were usually flanked,
at irregular intervals, by square or rectangular towers, which
projected considerably beyond the line of the curtain. The towers were
of a more massive construction than the wall itself, especially in the
lower portion, where vast blocks were common. The wall was also broken
at intervals by gates, some of which were posterns, either arched or
covered in by flat stones,[53] while others were of larger dimensions,
and were protected, on one side or on both, by bastions. The sites of
towns were commonly eminences, and the line of the walls followed the
irregularities of the ground, crowning the slopes where they were
steepest. Sometimes, as at Carthage and Thapsus, where the wall had to
be carried across a flat space, the wall of defence was doubled, or
even tripled. The restorations of Daux[54] contain, no doubt, a good
deal that is fanciful; but they give, probably, a fair idea of the
general character of the so-called "triple wall" of certain Phœnician
cities. The outer line, or {proteikhisma}, was little more than an
earthwork, consisting of a ditch, with the earth from it thrown up
inwards, crowned perhaps at top with a breastwork of masonry. The
second line was far more elaborate. There was first a ditch deeper
than the outer one, while behind this rose a perpendicular
battlemented wall to the height, from the bottom of the ditch, of
nearly forty feet. In the thickness of the wall, which was not much
less than the height, were chambers for magazines and cisterns, while
along the top, behind the parapet, ran a platform, from which the
defenders discharged their arrows and other missiles against the
enemy. Further back, at the distance of about thirty yards, came the
main line of defence, which in general character resembled the second,
but was loftier and stronger. There was, first, a third ditch (or
moat, if water could be introduced), and behind it a wall thirty-five
feet thick and sixty feet high, pierced by two rows of embrasures from
which arrows could be discharged, and having a triple platform for the
defenders. This wall was kept entirely clear of the houses of the
town, and the different storeys could be reached by sloping ascents or
internal staircases. It was flanked at intervals by square towers,
somewhat higher than the walls, which projected sufficiently for the
defenders to enfilade the assailants when they approached the base of
the curtain.

The tombs of the Phœnicians were, most usually, underground
constructions, either simple excavations in the rock, or subterranean
chambers, built of hewn stone, at the bottom of sloping passages, or
perpendicular shafts, which gave access to them. The simpler kinds
bear a close resemblance to the sepulchres of the Jews. A chamber is
opened in the rock, in the sides of which are hollowed out,
horizontally, a number of caverns or /loculi/, each one intended to
receive a corpse.[55] If more space is needed, a passage is made from
one of the sides of the chamber to a certain distance, and then a
second chamber is excavated, and more /loculi/ are formed; and the
process is repeated as often as necessary. But chambers thus excavated
were apt to collapse, especially if the rock was of the soft and
friable nature so common in Phœnicia Proper and in Cyprus; on which
account, in such soils, the second kind of tomb was preferred,
sepulchural chambers being solidly built,[56] either singly or in
groups, each made to hold a certain number of sarcophagi. The most
remarkable tombs of this class are those found at Amathus, on the
south coast of Cyprus, by General Di Cesnola. They lie at the depth of
from forty to fifty-five feet below the surface of the soil,[57] and
are square chambers, built of huge stones, carefully squared, some of
them twenty feet in length, nine in breadth, and three in thickness,
and even averaging a length of fourteen feet.[58] Two shapes occur.
Some of the tombs are almost perfect cubes, the upright walls rising
to a height of twelve or fifteen feet, and being then covered in by
three or four long slabs of stone. Others resemble huts, having a
gable at either end, and a sloping roof formed of slabs which meet and
support each other. A squared doorway, from five to six feet in
height, gives entrance to the tombs at one end, and has for ornament a
fourfold fillet, which surrounds it on three sides. Otherwise,
ornamentation is absent, the stonework of both walls and roofs being
absolutely plain and bare. Internally the chambers present the same
naked appearance, walls and roofs being equally plain, and the floor
paved with oblong slabs of stone, about a foot and a half in length.

The grouped chambers are of several kinds. Sometimes there are two
chambers only, one opening directly into the other, and not always
similarly roofed. Occasionally, groups of three are found, and there
are examples of groups of four. In these instances, the exact symmetry
is remarkable. A single doorway of the usual character gives entrance
to a nearly square chamber, the exact dimensions of which are thirteen
feet four inches by twelve feet two inches. Midway in the side and
opposite walls are three other doorways, each of them three foot six
inches in width, which lead into exactly similar square chambers,
having a length of twelve feet two inches, and a width of ten feet
nine.[59]

Chambers of the character here described contain in almost every
instance stone sarcophagi. These are ranged along the walls, at a
little distance from them. The chambers commonly contain two or three;
but sometimes one sarcophagus is superimposed upon another, and in
this way the number occasionally reaches to six.[60] Mostly, the
sarcophagi are plain, or nearly so, but are covered over with a
sloping lid. Sometimes, however, they are elaborately carved, and
constitute works of art, which are of the highest value. An account
will be given of the most remarkable of these objects in the chapter
on Phœnician Æsthetic Art.

Another distinct type of Phœnician tomb is that which is peculiar to
Nea-Paphos, and which is thought by some to have been employed
exclusively by the High Priests of the great temple there.[61] The
peculiarity of these burial-places is, that the sepulchral chambers
are adjuncts of a quadrangular court open to the sky, and surrounded
by a colonnade supported on pillars.[62] The court, the colonnade, the
pillars, the entablature, and the chambers, with their niches for the
dead, are all equally cut out of the rock, as well as the passage by
which the court is entered, at one corner of the quadrangle. The
columns are either square or rounded, the rounded ones having capitals
resembling those of the Doric order; and the entablature is also a
rough imitation of the Doric triglyphs, and guttæ. The entrances to
the sepulchral chambers are under the colonnade, behind the
pillars;[63] and the chambers contain, beside niches, a certain number
of bases for sarcophagi, but no sarcophagi have been found in them.
The quadrangle is of a small size, not more than about eighteen feet
each way.

Thus far we have described that portion of the sepulchral architecture
of the Phœnicians which is most hidden from sight, lying, as it does,
beneath the surface of the soil. With tombs of this quiet character
the Phœnicians were ordinarily contented. They were not, however,
wholly devoid of those feelings with respect to their dead which have
caused the erection, in most parts of the world, of sepulchral
monuments intended to attract the eye, and to hand on to later ages
the memory of the departed. Well acquainted with Egypt, they could not
but have been aware from the earliest times of those massive piles
which the vanity of Egyptian monarchs had raised up for their own
glorification on the western side of the valley of the Nile; nor in
later days could such monuments have escaped their notice as the
Mausoleum of Halicarnassus[64] or the Tomb of the Maccabees.[65]
Accordingly, we find them, at a very remote period, not merely anxious
to inter their dead decently and carefully in rock tombs or
subterranean chambers of massive stone, but also wishful upon
occasions to attract attention to the last resting-places of their
great men, by constructions which showed themselves above the ground,
and had some architectural pretensions. One of these, situated near
Amrith, the ancient Marathus, is a very curious and peculiar
structure. It is known at the present day as the Burdj-el-Bezzâk,[66]
and was evidently constructed to be, like the pyramids, at once a
monument and a tomb. It is an edifice, built of large blocks of stone,
and rising to a height of thirty-two feet above the plain at its base,
so contrived as to contain two sepulchral chambers, the one over the
other. Externally, the monument is plain almost to rudeness, being
little more than a cubic mass, broken only by two doorways, and having
for its sole ornament a projecting cornice in front. Internally, there
is more art and contrivance. The chambers are very carefully
constructed, and contain a number of niches intended to receive
sarcophagi, the lower having accommodation for three and the upper for
twelve bodies.[67] It is thought that originally the cubic mass, which
is all that now remains, was surmounted by a pyramidical roof, many
stones from which were found by M. Renan among the débris that were
scattered around. The height of the monument was thus increased by
perhaps one-half, and did not fall much short of sixty-five feet.[68]
The cornice, which is now seen on one side only, and which is there
imperfect, originally, no doubt, encircled the entire edifice.

The other constructions erected by the Phœnicians to mark the resting-
places of their dead are simple monuments erected near, and generally
over, the tombs in which the bodies are interred. The best known is
probably that in the vicinity of Tyre, which the natives call the
Kabr-Hiram, or "Tomb of Hiram."[69] No great importance can be
attached to this name, which appears to be a purely modern one;[70]
but the monument is undoubtedly ancient, perhaps as ancient as any
other in Phœnicia.[71] It is composed of eight courses of huge stones
superimposed one upon another,[72] the blocks having in some cases a
length of eleven or twelve feet, with a breadth of seven or eight, and
a depth of three feet. The courses retreat slightly, with the
exception of the fifth, which projects considerably beyond the line of
the fourth and still more beyond that of the sixth. The whole effect
is less that of a pyramid than of a stelé or pillar, the width at top
being not very much smaller than that at the base. The monument is a
solid mass, and is not a square but a rectangular oblong, the broader
sides measuring fourteen feet and the narrower about eight feet six
inches. Two out of the eight courses are of the nature of
substructions, being supplemental to the rock, which supplies their
place in part; and it is only recently that they have been brought to
light by means of excavation. Hence the earlier travellers speak of
the monument as having no more than six courses. The present height
above the soil is a little short of twenty-five feet. A flight of
steps cut in the rock leads down from the monument to a sepulchral
chamber, which, however, contains neither sepulchral niche nor
sarcophagus.

But the most striking of the Phœnician sepulchral monuments are to be
found in the north of Phœnicia, and not in the south, in the
neighbourhood, not of Tyre and Sidon, but of Marathus and Aradus. Two
of them, known as the Méghâzil,[73] form a group which is very
remarkable, and which, if we may trust the restoration of M.
Thobois,[74] must have had considerable architectural merit. Situated
very near each other, on the culminating point of a great plateau of
rock, they dominate the country far and wide, and attract the eye from
a long distance. One seems to have been in much simpler and better
taste than the other. M. Renan calls it "a real masterpiece, in
respect of proportion, of elegance, and of majesty."[75] It is built
altogether in three stages. First, there is a circular basement story
flanked by four figures of lions, attached to the wall behind them,
and only showing in front of it their heads, their shoulders, and
their fore paws. This basement, which has a height of between seven
and eight feet, is surmounted by a cylindrical tower in two stages,
the lower stage measuring fourteen and the upper, which is domed, ten
feet. The basement is composed of four great stones, the entire tower
above it is one huge monolith. An unusual and very effective
ornamentation crowns both stages of the tower, consisting of a series
of gradines at top with square machicolations below.

The other monument of the pair, distant about twenty feet from the one
already described, is architecturally far less happy. It is composed
of four members, viz. a low plinth for base, above this a rectangular
pedestal, surmounted by a strong band or cornice; next, a monolithic
cylinder, without ornaments, which contracts slightly as it ascends;
and, lastly, a pentagonal pyramid at the top. The pedestal is
exceedingly rough and unfinished; generally, the workmanship is rude,
and the different members do not assort well one with another. Still
it would seem that the two monuments belong to the same age and are
parts of the same plan.[76] Their lines are parallel, as are those of
the subterranean apartments which they cover, and they stand within a
single enclosure. Whether the same architect designed them both it is
impossible to determine, but if so he must have been one of the class
of artists who have sometimes happy and sometimes unhappy
inspirations.

Both the Méghâzil are superimposed upon subterranean chambers,
containing niches for bodies, and reached by a flight of steps cut in
the rock, the entrance to which is at some little distance from the
monuments.[77] But there is nothing at all striking or peculiar in the
chambers, which are without ornament of any kind.

Another tomb, in the vicinity of the Méghâzil, is remarkable chiefly
for the care taken to shelter and protect the entrance to the set of
chambers which it covers.[78] The monument is a simple one. A square
monolith, crowned by a strong cornice, stands upon a base consisting
of two steps. Above the cornice is another monolith, the lower part
squared and the upper shaped into a pyramid. The upper part of the
pyramid has crumbled away, but enough remains to show the angle of the
slope, and to indicate for the original erection a height of about
twenty feet. At the distance of about ten yards from the base of the
monument is a second erection, consisting of two tiers of large
stones, which roof in the entrance to a flight of eighteen steps.
These steps lead downwards to a sloping passage, in which are
sepulchral niches, and thence into two chambers, the inner one of
which is almost directly under the main monument. Probably, a block of
stone, movable but removed with difficulty, originally closed the
entrance at the point where the steps begin. This stone ordinarily
prevented ingress, but when a fresh corpse was to be admitted, or
funeral ceremonies were to be performed in one of the chambers, it
could be "rolled"[79] or dragged away.

Phœnician architects were, as a general rule, exceedingly sparing in
the use of ornament. Neither the pillar, nor the arch, much less the
vault, was a feature in their principal buildings, which affected
straight lines, right-angles, and a massive construction, based upon
the Egyptian. The pillar came ultimately to be adopted, to a certain
extent, from the Greeks; but only the simplest forms, the Doric and
Ionic, were in use, if we except certain barbarous types which the
people invented for themselves. The true arch was scarcely known in
Phœnicia, at any rate till Roman times, though false arches were not
infrequent in the gateways of towns and the doors of houses.[80] The
external ornamentation of buildings was chiefly by cornices of various
kinds, by basement mouldings, by carvings about doorways,[81] by
hemispherical or pyramidical roofs, and by the use of bevelled stones
in the walls. The employment of animal forms in external decoration
was exceedingly rare; and the half lions of the circular Méghâzil of
Amrith are almost unique.

In internal ornamentation there was greater variety. Pavements were
sometimes of mosaic, and glowed with various colours;[82] sometimes
they were of alabaster slabs elaborately patterned. Alabaster slabs
also, it is probable, adorned the walls of temples and houses,
excepting where woodwork was employed, as in the Temple of Solomon.
There is much richness and beauty in many of the slabs now in the
Phœnician collection of the Louvre,[83] especially in those which
exhibit the forms of sphinxes or griffins. Many of the patterns most
affected are markedly Assyrian in character, as the rosette, the palm-
head, the intertwined ribbons, and the rows of gradines which occur so
frequently. Even the Sphinxes are rather Assyrian than Egyptian in
character; and exhibit the recurved wings, which are never found in
the valley of the Nile. In almost all the forms employed there is a
modification of the original type, sufficient to show that the
Phœnician artist did not care merely to reproduce.

On the whole the architecture must be pronounced wanting in
originality and in a refined taste. What M. Renan says of Phœnician
art in general[84] is especially true of Phœnician architecture.
"Phœnician art, which issued, as it would seem, originally from mere
troglodytism, was, from the time when it arrived at the need of
ornament, essentially an art of imitation. That art was, above all,
industrial; that art never raised itself for its great public
monuments to a style that was at once elegant and durable. The origin
of Phœnician architecture was the excavated rock, not the column, as
was the case with the Greeks. The wall replaced the excavated rock
after a time, but without wholly losing its character. There is
nothing that leads us to believe that the Phœnicians knew how to
construct a keyed vault. The monolithic principle which dominated the
Phœnician and Syrian art, even after it had taken Greek art for its
model, is the exact contrary of the Hellenic style. Greek architecture
starts from the principle of employing small stones, and proclaims the
principal loudly. At no time did the Greeks extract from Pentelicus
blocks at all comparable for size with those of Baalbek or of Egypt;
they saw no use in doing so; on the contrary, with masses of such
enormity, which it is desired to use in their entirety, the architect
is himself dominated; the material, instead of being subordinate to
the design of the edifice, runs counter to the design and contradicts
it. The monuments on the Acropolis of Athens would be impossible with
blocks of the size usual in Syria."[85] Thus there is always something
heavy, rude, and coarse in the Phœnician buildings, which betray their
troglodyte origin by an over-massive and unfinished appearance.

There is also a want of originality, more especially in the
ornamentation. Egypt, Assyria, and Greece have furnished the "motives"
which lie at the root of almost all the decorative art that is to be
met with, either in the mother country or in the colonies. Winged
disks, uræi, scarabs, sphinxes, have been adopted from Egypt; Assyria
has furnished gradines, lotus blossoms, rosettes, the palm-tree
ornament, the ribbon ornament, and the form of the lion; Greece has
supplied pillars, pediments, festoons, and chimæras. Native talent has
contributed little or nothing to the ornamentation of buildings, if we
except the modification of the types which have been derived from
foreign sources.

Finally, there is a want of combination and general plan in the
Phœnician constructions where they fall into groups. "This is sensibly
felt," according to M. Renan, "at Amrith, at Kabr-Hiram, and at Um-el-
Awamid. In the remains still visible in these localities there are
many fine ideas, many beautiful details; but they do not fall under
any general dominant plan, as do the buildings on the Acropolis of
Athens. One seems to see a set of people who are fond of working in
stone for its own sake, but who do not care to arrive at a mutual
understanding in order to produce in common a single work, since they
do not know that it is the conception of a grand whole which
constitutes greatness in art. Hence the incompleteness of the
monuments; there is not a tomb to which the relations of the deceased
have deemed it fitting to give the finishing touches; there is
everywhere a certain egotism, like that which in later times prevented
the Mussulman monuments from enduring. A passing pleasure in art does
not induce men to finish, since finishing requires a certain stiffness
of will. In general, the ancient Phœnicians appear to have had the
spirit of sculptors rather than of architects. They did not construct
in great masses, but every one laboured on his own account. Hence
there was no exact measurement, and no symmetry. Even the capitals of
the columns at Um-el-Awamid are not alike; in the portions which most
evidently correspond the details are different."[86]



CHAPTER VII

ÆSTHETIC ART

  Recent discoveries of Phœnician artistic remains--Phœnician
  sculpture--Statues and busts--Animal forms--Bas-reliefs--Hercules
  and Geryon--Scenes on sarcophagi--Phœnicians metal castings--
  Jachin and Boaz--Solomon's "Molten Sea"--Solomon's lavers--
  Statuettes in bronze--Embossed work upon cups and pateræ--Cup of
  Præneste--Intaglios on cylinders and gems--Phœnician painting--
  Tinted statues--Paintings on terra-cotta and clay.

Phœnician æsthetic art embraced sculpture, metal-casting, intaglio,
and painting to a small extent. Situated as the Phœnicians were, in
the immediate neighbourhood of nations which had practised from a
remote antiquity the imitation of natural forms, and brought into
contact by their commercial transactions with others, with whom art of
every kind was in the highest esteem--adroit moreover with their
hands, clever, active, and above all else practical--it was scarcely
possible that they should not, at an early period in their existence
as a nation, interest themselves in what they found so widely
appreciated, and become themselves ambitious of producing such works
as they saw everywhere produced, admired, and valued. The mere
commercial instinct would lead them to supply a class of goods which
commanded a high price in the world's markets; while it is not to be
supposed that they were, any more than other nations, devoid of those
æsthetic propensities which find a vent in what are commonly called
the "fine arts," or less susceptible of that natural pleasure which
successful imitation evokes from all who find themselves capable of
it. Thus, we might have always safely concluded, even without any
material evidence of it, that the Phœnicians had an art of their own,
either original or borrowed; but we are now able to do more than this.
Recent researches in Phœnicia Proper, in Cyprus, in Sardina, and
elsewhere, have recovered such a mass of Phœnician artistic remains,
that it is possible to form a tolerably complete idea of the character
of their æsthetic art, of its methods, its aims, and its value.

Phœnician sculpture, even at its best, is somewhat rude. The country
possesses no marble, and has not even any stone of a fine grain. The
cretaceous limestone, which is the principal geological formation, is
for the most part so pierced with small holes and so thickly sown with
fossil shells as to be quite unsuited for the chisel; and even the
better blocks, which the native sculptors were careful to choose, are
not free from these defects, and in no case offer a grain that is
satisfactory. To meet these difficulties, the Phœnician sculptor
occasionally imported his blocks either from Egypt or from the
volcanic regions of Taurus and Amanus;[1] but it was not until he had
transported himself to Cyprus, and found there an abundance of a soft,
but fairly smooth, compact, and homogeneous limestone, that he worked
freely, and produced either statues or bas-reliefs in any considerable
number.[2] The Cyprian limestone is very easy to work. "It is a
whitish stone when it comes out of the quarry, but by continued
exposure to the air the tone becomes a greyish yellow, which, though a
little dull, is not disagreeable to the eye. The nail can make an
impression on it, and it is worked by the chisel much more easily and
more rapidly than marble. But it is in the plastic arts as in
literature and poetry--what costs but little trouble has small chance
of enduring. The Cyprian limestone is too soft to furnish the effects
and the contrasts which marble offers, so to speak, spontaneously; it
is incapable of receiving the charming polish which makes so strong an
opposition to the dark shadows of the parts where the chisel has
scooped deep. The chisel, whatever efforts it may make and however
laboriously it may be applied, cannot impress on such material the
strong and bold touches which indicate the osseous structure, and make
the muscles and the veins show themselves under the epidermis in Greek
statuary. The sculptor's work is apt to be at once finikin and lax; it
wants breadth, and it wants decision. Moreover, the material, having
little power of resistance, retains but ill what the chisel once
impressed; the more delicate markings and the more lifelike touches
that it once received, it loses easily through friction or exposure to
rough weather. A certain number of the sculptured figures found by M.
Di Cesnola at Athiénau were discovered under conditions that were
quite peculiar, having passed from the shelter of a covered chamber to
that of a protecting bed of dust, which had hardened and adhered to
their surfaces; and these figures had preserved an unusual freshness,
and seem as if just chiselled; but, saving these exceptions, the
Cypriot figures have their angles rounded, and their projections
softened down. It is like a page of writing, where the ink, before it
had time to dry, preserving its sharpness of tone, has been absorbed
by the blotting paper and has left only pale and feeble traces."[3]

Another striking defect in the Phœnician, or at any rate in the
Cyprio-Phœnician, sculpture, and one that cannot be excused on account
of any inherent weakness in the material, is the thinness and flatness
of the greater part of the figures. The sculptor seems to have been
furnished by the stonecutter, not so much with solid blocks of stone,
as with tolerably thick slabs.[4] These he fashioned carefully in
front, and produced statues, which, viewed in front, are lifelike and
fairly satisfactory. But to the sides and back of the slab he paid
little attention, not intending that his work should be looked at from
all quarters, but that the spectator should directly face it. The
statues were made to stand against walls,[5] or in niches, or back to
back, the heels and backs touching;[6] they were not, properly
speaking, works /in the round/, but rather /alti relievi/ a little
exaggerated, not actually part of the wall, but laid closely against
it. A striking example of this kind of work may be seen in a figure
now at New York, which appears to represent a priest, whereof a front
view is given by Di Cesnola in his "Cyprus," and a side view by Perrot
and Chipiez in their "History of Ancient Art." The head and neck are
in good proportion, but the rest of the figure is altogether unduly
thin, while for some space above the feet it is almost literally a
slab, scarcely fashioned at all.

This fault is less pronounced in some statues than in others, and from
a certain number of the statuettes is wholly absent. This is notably
the case in a figure found at Golgi, which represents a female arrayed
in a long robe, the ample folds of which she holds back with one hand,
while the other hand is advanced, and seems to have held a lotus
flower. Three graceful tresses fall on either side of the neck, round
which is a string of beads or pearls, with an amulet as pendant; while
a long veil, surmounted by a diadem, hangs from the back of the head.
This statue is in no respect narrow or flat, as may be seen especially
from the side view given by Di Cesnola;[7] but it is short and
inelegant, though not wanting in dignity; and it is disfigured by
sandalled feet of a very disproportionate size, which stand out
offensively in front. The figure has been viewed as a representation
of the goddess Astarte or Ashtoreth;[8] but the identification can
scarcely be regarded as more than a reasonable conjecture.

The general defects of Phœnician statuary, besides want of finish and
flatness, are a stiff and conventional treatment, recalling the art of
Egypt and Assyria, a want of variety, and a want of life. Most of the
figures stand evenly on the two feet, and have the arms pendant at the
two sides, with the head set evenly, neither looking to the right nor
to the left, while even the arrangement of the drapery is one of great
uniformity. In the points where there is any variety, the variety is
confined within very narrow limits. One foot may be a little
advanced;[9] one arm may be placed across the breast, either as
confined by the robe,[10] or as holding something, e.g. a bird or a
flower.[11] In female figures both arms may be laid along the
thighs,[12] or both be bent across the bosom, with the hands clasping
the breasts,[13] or one hand may be so placed, and the other depend in
front.[14] The hair and beard are mostly arranged with the utmost
regularity in crisp curls, resembling the Assyrian; where tresses are
worn, they are made to hang, whatever their number, with exact
uniformity on either side.[15] Armlets and bracelets appear always in
pairs, and are exactly similar; the two sides of a costume correspond
perfectly; and in the groups the figures have, as nearly as possible,
the same attitude.

Repose is no doubt the condition of human existence which statuary
most easily and most naturally expresses; and few things are more
obnoxious to a refined taste than that sculpture which, like that of
Roubiliac, affects movement, fidget, flutter, and unquiet. But in the
Phœnician sculpture the repose is overdone; except in the expression
of faces, there is scarcely any life at all. The figures do nothing;
they simply stand to be looked at. And they stand stiffly, sometimes
even awkwardly, rarely with anything like elegance or grace. The
heads, indeed, have life and vigour, especially after the artists have
become acquainted with Greek models;[16] but they are frequently too
large for the bodies whereto they are attached, and the face is apt to
wear a smirk that is exceedingly disagreeable. This is most noticeable
in the Cypriot series, as will appear by the accompanying
representations; but it is not confined to them, since it reappears in
the bronzes found in Phœnicia Proper.

Phœnician statues are almost always more or less draped. Sometimes
nothing is worn besides the short tunic, or /shenti/, of the
Egyptians, which begins below the navel and terminates at the
knee.[17] Sometimes there is added to this a close-fitting shirt, like
a modern "jersey," which has short sleeves and clings to the figure,
so that it requires careful observation to distinguish between a
statue thus draped and one which has the /shenti/ only.[18] But there
are also a number of examples where the entire figure is clothed from
the head to the ankles, and nothing is left bare but the face, the
hands, and the feet. A cap, something like a Phrygian bonnet, covers
the head; a long-sleeved robe reaches from the neck to the ankles, or
sometimes rests upon the feet; and above this is a mantle or scarf
thrown over the left shoulder, and hanging down nearly to the knees.
Ultimately a drapery greatly resembling that of the Greeks seems to
have been introduced; a long cloak, or /chlamys/, is worn, which falls
into numerous folds, and is disposed about the person according to the
taste and fancy of the wearer, but so as to leave the right arm
free.[19] Statues of this class are scarcely distinguishable from
Greek statues of a moderately good type.

Phœnician sculptors /in the round/ did not very often indulge in the
representation of animal forms. The lion, however, was sometimes
chiselled in stone, either partially, as in a block of stone found by
M. Renan at Um-el-Awamid, or completely, as in a statuette brought by
General Di Cesnola from Cyprus. The representations hitherto
discovered have not very much merit. We may gather from them that the
sculptors were unacquainted with the animal itself, had never seen the
king of beasts sleeping in the shade or stretching himself and yawning
as he awoke, or walking along with a haughty and majestic slowness, or
springing with one bound upon his prey, but had simply studied without
much attention or interest the types furnished them by Egyptian or
Assyrian artists, who were familiar with the beast himself. The
representations are consequently in every case feeble and
conventional; in some they verge on the ridiculous. What, for
instance, can be weaker than the figure above given from the great
work of Perrot and Chipiez, with its good-humoured face, its tongue
hanging out of its mouth, its tottering forelegs, and its general air
of imbecility? The lioness' head represented in the same work is
better, but still leaves much to be desired, falling, as it does, very
far behind the best Assyrian models. Nor were the sculptors much more
successful in their mode of expressing animals with whose forms they
were perfectly well acquainted. The sheep carried on the back of a
shepherd, brought from Cyprus and now in the museum of New York, is a
very ill-shaped sheep, and the doves so often represented are very
poor doves.[20] They are just recognisable, and that is the most that
can be said for them. A dog in stone,[21] found at Athiénau, is
somewhat better, equally the dogs of the Egyptians and Assyrians. On
the other hand, the only fully modelled horses that have been found
are utterly childish and absurd.[22]

The reliefs of the Phœnicians are very superior to their statues. They
vary in their character from almost the lowest kind of relief to the
highest. On dresses, on shields, on slabs, and on some sarcophagi it
is much higher than is usual even in Greece. A bas-relief of peculiar
interest was discovered at Athiénau by General Di Cesnola, and has
been represented both by him and by the Italian traveller
Ceccaldi.[23] It represents Hercules capturing the cattle of Geryon
from the herdsman Eurytion, and gives us reason to believe that that
myth was a native Phœnician legend adopted by the Greeks, and not a
Hellenic one imported into Phœnicia. The general character of the
sculpture is archaic and Assyrian; nor is there a trace of Greek
influence about it. Hercules, standing on an elevated block of stone
at the extreme left, threatens the herdsman, who responds by turning
towards him, and making a menacing gesture with his right hand, while
in his left, instead of a club, he carries an entire tree. His hair
and beard are curled in the Assyrian fashion, while his figure, though
short, is strong and muscular. In front of him are his cattle, mixed
up in a confused and tangled mass, some young, but most of them full
grown, and amounting to the number of seventeen. They are in various
attitudes, and are drawn with much spirit, recalling groups of cattle
in the sculptures of Assyria and Egypt, but surpassing any such group
in the vigour of their life and movement. Above, in an upper field or
plain, divided from the under one by a horizontal line, is the triple-
headed dog, Orthros, running full speed towards Hercules, and scarcely
checked by the arrow which has met him in mid career, and entered his
neck at the point of junction between the second and the third
head.[24] The bas-relief is three feet two inches in length, and just
a little short of two feet in height. It served to ornament a huge
block of stone which formed the pedestal of a colossal statue of
Hercules, eight feet nine inches high.[25]

A sarcophagus, on which the relief is low, has been described and
figured by Di Cesnola,[26] who discovered it in the same locality as
the sculpture which has just engaged our attention. The sarcophagus,
which had a lid guarded by lions at the four corners, was ornamented
at both ends and along both sides by reliefs. The four scenes depicted
appear to be distinct and separate. At one end Perseus, having cut off
Medusa's head and placed it in his wallet, which he carries behind him
by means of a stick passed over his shoulder, departs homewards
followed by his dog. Medusa's body, though sunk upon one knee, is
still upright, and from the bleeding neck there spring the forms of
Chrysaor and Pegasus. At the opposite end of the tomb is a biga drawn
by two horses, and containing two persons, the charioteer and the
owner, who is represented as bearded, and rests his hand upon the
chariot-rim. The horse on the right hand, which can alone be
distinctly seen, is well proportioned and spirited. He is impatient
and is held in by the driver, and prevented from proceeding at more
than a foot's pace. On the longer sides are a hunting scene, and a
banqueting scene. In a wooded country, indicated by three tall trees,
a party, consisting of five individuals, engages in the pleasures of
the chase. Four of the five are accoutred like Greek soldiers; they
wear crested helmets, cuirasses, belts, and a short tunic ending in a
fringe: the arms which they carry are a spear and a round buckler or
shield. The fifth person is an archer, and has a lighter equipment; he
wears a cloth about his loins, a short tunic, and a round cap on his
head. The design forms itself into two groups. On the right two of the
spearmen are engaged with a wild boar, which they are wounding with
their lances; on the left the two other spearmen and the archer are
attacking a wild bull. In the middle a cock separates the two groups,
while at the two extremities two animal forms, a horse grazing and a
dog trying to make out a scent, balance each other. The fourth side of
the sarcophagus presents us with a banqueting scene. On four couches,
much like the Assyrian,[27] are arranged the banqueters. At the
extreme right the couch is occupied by a single person, who has a long
beard and extends a wine-cup towards an attendant, a naked youth, who
is advancing towards him with a wine-jug in one hand, and a ladle or
strainer in the other. The three other couches are occupied
respectively by three couples, each comprising a male and a female.
The male figure reclines in the usual attitude, half sitting and half
lying, with the left arm supported on two pillows;[28] the female sits
on the edge of the couch, with her feet upon a footstool. The males
hold wine-cups; of the females, one plays upon the lyre, while the two
others fondle with one hand their lover or husband. A fourth female
figure, erect in the middle between the second and third couches,
plays the double flute for the delectation of the entire party. All
the figures, except the boy attendant, are decently draped, in robes
with many folds, resembling the Greek. At the side of each couch is a
table, on which are spread refreshments, while at the extreme left is
a large bowl or amphora, from which the wine-cups may be replenished.
This is placed under the shade of a tree, which tells us that the
festivity takes place in a garden.[29]

No one can fail to see, in this entire series of sculptures, the
dominant influence of Greece. While the form of the tomb, and the
lions that ornament the covering, are unmistakably Cyprio-Phœnician,
the reliefs contain scarcely a feature which is even Oriental; all has
markedly the colouring and the physiognomy of Hellenism. Yet Cyprian
artists probably executed the work. There are little departures from
Greek models, which indicate the "barbarian" workman, as the
introduction of trees in the backgrounds, the shape of the furniture,
the recurved wings of the Gorgon, and the idea of hunting the wild
bull. But the figures, the proportions, the draperies, the attitudes,
the chariot, the horse, are almost pure Greek. There is a grace and
ease in the modelling, an elegance, a variety, to which Asiatic art,
left to itself, never attained. The style, however, is not that of
Greece at its best, but of archaic Greece. There is something too much
of exact symmetry, both in the disposition of the groups and in the
arrangement of the accessories; nay, even the very folds of the
garments are over-stiff and regular. All is drawn in exact profile;
and in the composition there is too much of balance and
correspondence. Still, a new life shows itself through the scenes.
There is variety in the movements; there is grace and suppleness in
the forms; there is lightness in the outline, vigour in the attitudes,
and beauty spread over the whole work. It cannot be assigned an
earlier date than the fifth century B.C., and is most probably
later,[30] since it took time for improved style to travel from the
head-centres of Greek art to the remoter provinces, and still more
time for it to percolate through the different layers of Greek society
until it reached the stratum of native Cyprian artistic culture.

We may contrast with the refined work of the Athiénau sarcophagus the
far ruder, but more genuinely native, designs of a tomb of the same
kind found on the site of Amathus.[31] On this sarcophagus, the edges
of which are most richly adorned with patterning, there are, as upon
the other, four reliefs, two of them occupying the sides and two the
ends. Those at the ends are curious, but have little artistic merit.
They consist, in each case, of a caryatid figure four times repeated,
representations, respectively, of Astarté and of a pygmy god, who,
according to some, is Bes, and, according to others, Melkarth or
Esmun.[32] The figures of Astarté are rude, as are generally her
statues.[33] They have the hair arranged in three rows of crisp curls,
the arms bent, and the hands supporting the breasts. The only ornament
worn by them is a double necklace of pearls or round beads. The
representations of the pygmy god have more interest. They remind us of
what Herodotus affirms concerning the Phœnician /pataikoi/, which were
used for the figure-heads of ships,[34] and which he compares to the
Egyptian images of Phthah, or Ptah, the god of creation. They are ugly
dwarf figures, with a large misshapen head, a bushy beard, short arms,
fat bodies, a short striped tunic, and thick clumsy legs. Only one of
the four figures is at present complete, the sarcophagus having been
entered by breaking a hole into it at this end.

The work at the sides is much superior to that at the ends. The two
panels represent, apparently, a single scene. The scene is a
procession, but whether funeral or military it is hard to decide.[35]
First come two riders on horseback, wearing conical caps and close-
fitting jerkins; they are seated on a species of saddle, which is kept
in place by a board girth passing round the horse's belly, and by
straps attached in front. The two cavaliers are followed by four
/bigæ/. The first contains the principal personages of the
composition, who sits back in his car, and shades himself with a
parasol, the mark of high rank in the East, while his charioteer sits
in front of him and holds the reins. The second car has three
occupants; the third two; and the fourth also two, one of whom leans
back and converses with the footmen, who close the procession. These
form a group of three, and seem to be soldiers, since they bear shield
and spear; but their costume, a loose robe wrapped round the form, is
rather that of civilians. The horses are lightly caparisoned, with
little more than a head-stall and a collar; but they carry on their
heads a conspicuous fan-like crest.[36] MM. Perrot and Chipiez thus
sum up their description of this monument:--"Both in the ornamentation
and in the sculpture properly so-called there is a mixture of two
traditions and two inspirations, diverse one from the other. The
persons who chiselled the figures in the procession which fills the
two principal sides of the sarcophagus were the pupils of Grecian
statuaries; they understood how to introduce variety into the
attitudes of those whom they represented, and even into the movements
of the horses. Note, in this connection, the steeds of the two
cavaliers in front; one of them holds up his head, the other bends it
towards the ground. The draperies are also cleverly treated,
especially those of the foot soldiers who bring up the rear, and
resemble in many respects the costume of the Greeks. On the other
hand, the types of divinity, repeated four times at the two ends of
the monument, have nothing that is Hellenic about them, but are
borrowed from the Pantheon of Phœnicia. Even in the procession itself
--the train of horsemen, footmen, and chariots, which is certainly the
sculptor's true subject--there are features which recall the local
customs and usages of the East. The conical caps of the two cavaliers
closely resemble those which we see on the heads of many of the
Cyprian statues; the parasol which shades the head of the great person
in the first /biga/ is the symbol of Asiatic royalty; lastly, the fan-
shaped plume which rises above the heads of all the chariot horses is
an ornament that one sees in the same position in Assyria and in
Lycia, whensoever the sculptor desires to represent horses
magnificently caparisoned."[37]

Sarcophagi recently exhumed in the vicinity of Sidon are said to be
adorned with reliefs superior to any previously known specimens of
Phœnician art. As, however, no drawings or photographs of these
sculptures have as yet reached Western Europe, it will perhaps be
sufficient in this place to direct attention to the descriptions of
them which an eye-witness has published in the "Journal de
Beyrout."[38] No trustworthy critical estimate can be formed from mere
descriptions, and it will therefore be necessary to reserve our
judgment until the sculptures themselves, or correct representations
of them, are accessible.

The metal castings of the Phœnicians, according to the accounts which
historians give of them, were of a very magnificent and extraordinary
character. The Hiram employed by Solomon in the ornamentation of the
Temple at Jerusalem, who was a native of Tyre,[39] designed and
executed by his master's orders a number of works in metal, which seem
to have been veritable masterpieces. The strangest of all were the two
pillars of bronze, which bore the names of "Jachin" and "Boaz,"[40]
and stood in front of the Temple porch, or possibly under it.[41]
These pillars, with their capitals, were between thirty-four and
thirty-five feet high, and had a diameter of six feet.[42] They were
cast hollow, the bronze whereof they were composed having a uniform
thickness of three inches,[43] or thereabouts. Their ornamentation was
elaborate. A sort of chain-work covered the "belly" or lower part of
the capitals,[44] while above and below were representations of
pomegranates in two rows, probably at the top and bottom of the
"belly," the number of the pomegranates upon each pillar being two
hundred.[45] At the summit of the whole was a sort of "lily-work"[46]
or imitation of the lotus blossom, a "motive" adopted from Egypt.
Various representations of the pillars have been attempted in works
upon Phœnician art, the most remarkable being those designed by M.
Chipiez, and published in the "Histoire de l'Art dans
l'Antiquité."[47] Perhaps, however, there is more to be said in favour
of M. de Vogüé's view, as enunciated in his work on the Jewish Temple.

The third great work of metallurgy which Hiram constructed for Solomon
was "the molten sea."[48] This was an enormous bronze basin, fifteen
feet in diameter, supported on the backs of twelve oxen, grouped in
sets of three.[49] The basin stood fourteen or fifteen feet above the
level of the Temple Court,[50] and was a vast reservoir, always kept
full of water, for the ablutions of the priests. There was an
ornamentation of "knops" or "gourds," in two rows, about the "brim" of
the reservoir; and it must have been supplied in its lower part with a
set of stopcocks, by means of which the water could be drawn off when
needed. Representations of the "molten sea" have been given by
Mangeant, De Vogüé, Thenius, and others; but all of them are,
necessarily, conjectural. The design of Mangeant is reproduced in the
preceding representation. It is concluded that the oxen must have been
of colossal size in order to bear a proper proportion to the basin,
and not present the appearance of being crushed under an enormous
weight.[51]

Next in importance to these three great works were ten minor ones,
made for the Jewish Temple by the same artist. These were lavers
mounted on wheels,[52] which could be drawn or pushed to any part of
the Temple Court where water might be required. The lavers were of
comparatively small size, capable of containing only one-fiftieth
part[53] of the contents of the "molten sea," but they were remarkable
for their ornamentation. Each was supported upon a "base;" and the
bases, which seem to have been panelled, contained, in the different
compartments, figures of lions, oxen, and cherubim,[54] either single
or in groups. On the top of the base, which seems to have been square,
was a circular stand or socket, a foot and a half in height, into
which the laver or basin fitted.[55] This, too, was panelled, and
ornamented with embossed work, representing lions, cherubim, and palm-
trees.[56] Each base was emplaced upon four wheels, which are said to
have resembled chariot wheels, but which were molten in one piece,
naves, spokes, and felloes together.[57] A restoration by M. Mangeant,
given by Perrot and Chipiez in the fourth volume of their "History of
Ancient Art," is striking, and leaves little to be desired.

Hiram is also said to have made for Solomon a number of pots, shovels,
basins, flesh-hooks, and other instruments,[58] which were all used in
the Temple service; but as no description is given of any of these
works, even their general character can only be conjectured. We may,
however, reasonably suppose them not to have differed greatly from the
objects of a similar description found in Cyprus by General Di
Cesnola.[59]

From the conjectural, which may amuse, but can scarcely satisfy, the
earnest student, it is fitting that we should now pass to the known
and actual. Phœnician metal-work of various descriptions has been
found recently in Phœnicia Proper, in Cyprus, and in Sardinia; and,
though much of it consists of works of utility or of mere personal
adornment, which belong to another branch of the present enquiry,
there is a considerable portion which is more or less artistic and
which rightly finds its place in the present chapter. The Phœnicians,
though they did not, so far as we know, attempt with any frequency the
production, in bronze or other metal, of the full-sized human
form,[60] were fond of fabricating, especially in bronze, the smaller
kinds of figures which are known as "figurines" or "statuettes." They
also had a special talent for producing embossed metal-work of a
highly artistic character in the shape of cups, bowls, and dishes or
/pateræ/, whereon scenes of various kinds were represented with a
vigour and precision that are quite admirable. Some account of these
two classes of works must here be given.

The statuettes commence with work of the rudest kind. The Phœnician
sites in Sardinia have yielded in abundance grotesque figures of gods
and men,[61] from three or four to six or eight inches high, which
must be viewed as Phœnician productions, though perhaps they were not
the best works which Phœnician artists could produce, but such as were
best suited to the demands of the Sardinian market. The savage Sards
would not have appreciated beauty or grace; but to the savage mind
there is something congenial in grotesqueness. Hence gods with four
arms and four eyes,[62] warriors with huge horns projecting from their
helmets,[63] tall forms of extraordinary leanness,[64] figures with
abnormally large heads and hands,[65] huge noses, projecting eyes, and
various other deformities. For the home consumption statuettes of a
similar character were made; but they were neither so rude nor so
devoid of artistic merit. There is one in the Louvre, which was found
at Tortosa, in Northern Phœnicia, approaching nearly to the Sardinian
type, while others have less exaggeration, and seem intended
seriously. In Cyprus bronzes of a higher order have been
discovered.[66] One is a figure of a youth, perhaps Æsculapius,
embracing a serpent; another is a female form of much elegance, which
may have been the handle of a vase or jug; it springs from a grotesque
bracket, and terminates in a bar ornamented at either end with heads
of animals. The complete bronze figure found near Curium, which is
supposed to represent Apollo and is figured by Di Cesnola,[67] is
probably not the production of a Phœnician artists, but a sculpture
imported from Greece.

The embossed work upon cups and /pateræ/ is sometimes of great
simplicity, sometimes exceedingly elaborate. A patera of the simplest
kind was found by General Di Cesnola in the treasury of Curium and is
figured in his work.[68] At the bottom of the dish, in the middle, is
a rosette with twenty-two petals springing from a central disk; this
is surrounded by a ring whereon are two wavy lines of ribbon
intertwined. Four deer, with strongly recurved horns, spaced at equal
intervals, stand on the outer edge of the ring in a walking attitude.
Behind them and between them are a continuous row of tall stiff reeds
terminating in blossoms, which are supposed to represent the papyrus
plant. The reeds are thirty-two in number. We may compare with this
the medallion at the bottom of a cup found at Cære in Italy, which has
been published by Grifi.[69] Here, on a chequered ground, stands a cow
with two calves, one engaged in providing itself with its natural
sustenance, the other disporting itself in front of its dam. In the
background are a row of alternate papyrus blossoms and papyrus buds
bending gracefully to the right and to the left, so as to form a sort
of framework to the main design. Above the cow and in front of the
papyrus plants two birds wing their flight from left to right across
the scene.

A bronze bowl, discovered at Idalium (Dali) in Cyprus,[70] is, like
these specimens, Egyptian in its motive, but is more ambitious in that
it introduces the human form. On a throne of state sits a goddess,
draped in a long striped robe which reaches to the feet, and holding a
lotus flower in her right hand and a ball or apple in her left.
Bracelets adorn her wrists and anklets her feet. Behind her stands a
band of three instrumental performers, all of them women, and somewhat
variously costumed: the first plays the double pipe, the second
performs on a lyre or harp, the third beats the tambourine. In front
of the goddess is a table or altar, to which a votary approaches
bringing offerings. Then follows another table whereon two vases are
set; finally comes a procession of six females, holding hands, who are
perhaps performing a solemn dance. Behind them are a row of lotus
pillars, the supports probably of a temple, wherein the scene takes
place. The human forms in this design are ill-proportioned, and very
rudely traced. The heads and hands are too large, the faces are
grotesque, and the figures wholly devoid of grace. Mimetic art is seen
clearly in its first stage, and the Phœnician artist who has designed
the bowl has probably fallen short of his Egyptian models.

Animal and human forms intermixed occur on a silver /patera/ found at
Athiénau, which is more complicated and elaborate than the objects
hitherto described, but which is, like them, strikingly Egyptian.[71]
A small rosette occupies the centre; round it is, apparently, a pond
or lake, in which fish are disporting themselves; but the fish are
intermixed with animal and human forms--a naked female stretches out
her arms after a cow; a man clothed in a /shenti/ endeavours to seize
a horse. The pond is edged by papyrus plants, which are alternately in
blossom and in bud. A zigzag barrier separates this central
ornamentation from that of the outer part of the dish. Here a marsh is
represented in which are growing papyrus and other water-plants.
Aquatic birds swim on the surface or fly through the tall reeds. Four
boats form the chief objects in this part of the field. In one, which
is fashioned like a bird, there sits under a canopy a grandee, with an
attendant in front and a rower or steersman at the stern. Behind him,
in a second boat, is a band consisting of three undraped females, one
of whom plays a harp and another a tambourine, while the third keeps
time with her hands. A man with a punt-pole directs the vessel from
the stern. In the third boat, which has a freight of wine-jars, a cook
is preparing a bird for the grandee's supper. The fourth boat contains
three rowers, who possibly have the vessel of the grandee in tow. The
first and second boats are separated by two prancing steeds, the
second and third by two cows, the third and fourth by a chariot and
pair. It is difficult to explain the mixture of the aquatic with the
terrestrial in this piece; but perhaps the grandee is intended to be
enjoying himself in a marshy part of his domain, where he might ride,
drive, or boat, according to his pleasure. The whole scene is rather
Egyptian than Phœnician or Cypriot, and one cannot help suspecting
that the /patera/ was made for an Egyptian customer.

There is a /patera/ at Athens,[72] almost certainly Phœnician, which
may well be selected to introduce the more elaborate and complicated
of the Phœnician works of art in this class. It has been figured,[73]
and carefully described by MM. Perrot and Chipiez in these terms:--
"The medallion in the centre is occupied by a rosette with eight
points. The zone outside this, in which are distributed the personages
represented, is divided into four compartments by four figures, which
correspond to each other in pairs. They lift themselves out of a
trellis-work, bounded on either side by a light pillar without a base.
The capitals which crown the pillars recall those of the Ionic order,
but the abacus is much more developed. A winged globe, stretching from
pillar to pillar, roofs in this sort of little chapel; each is the
shrine of a divinity. One of the divinities is that nude goddess,
clasping her breasts with her hands, whom we have already met with in
the Phœnician world more than once; the other is a bearded personage,
whose face is framed in by his abundant hair; he appears to be dressed
in a close-fitting garment, made of a material folded in narrow
plaits. We do not know what name to give the personage. Each of the
figures is repeated twice. The rest of the field is occupied by four
distinct subjects, two of them being scenes of adoration. In one may
be recognised the figure of Isis-Athor, seated on a sort of camp-
stool, and giving suck to the young Horus;[74] on an altar in front of
the goddess is placed the disk of the moon, enveloped (as we have seen
it elsewhere) by a crescent which recalls the moon's phases. Behind
the altar stands a personage whose sex is not defined; the right hand,
which is raised, holds a /patera/, while the left, which falls along
the hip, has the /ankh/ or /crux ansata/. Another of the scenes
corresponds to this, and offers many striking analogies. The altar
indeed is of a different form, but it supports exactly the same
symbols. The goddess sits upon a throne with her feet on a footstool;
she has no child; in one hand she holds out a cup, in the other a
lotus blossom. The personage who confronts her wears a conical cap,
and is clothed, like the worshipper of the corresponding
representation, in a long robe pressed close to the body by a girdle
/à cordelière/; he has also the /crux ansata/, and holds in the right
hand an object the character and use of which I am unable to
conjecture. We may associate with these two scenes of homage and
worship another representation in which there figure three musicians.
The instruments are the same as usual--the lyre, the tambourine, and
the double pipe; two of the performers march at a steady pace; the
third, the one who beats the metal(?) disk, dances, as he plays, with
much vigour and spirit. In the last compartment we come again upon a
group that we have already met with in one of the cups from
Idalium.[75] . . . A beardless individual, clothed in the /shenti/,
has put his foot upon the body of a griffin, which, in struggling
against the pressure, flings its hind quarters into the air in a sort
of wild caper; the conqueror, however, holds it fast by the plume of
feathers which rises from its head, and plunges his sword into its
half-open beak. It is this group, drawn in relief, and on a larger
scale, that we meet with for a second time on the Athenian /patera/;
but in this case the group is augmented by a second personage, who
takes part in the struggle. This is an old man with a beard who is
armed with a formidable pike. Both the combatants wear conical caps
upon their heads, similar to those which we have noticed as worn by a
number of the statues from Cyprus; but the cap of the right-hand
personage terminates in a button, whereto is attached a long
appendage, which looks like the tail of an ox." The Egyptian character
of much of this design is incontestable. The /ankh/, the lotus blossom
in the hand, the winged disk, are purely Egyptian forms; the Isis
Athor with Horus in her lap speaks for itself; and the worshipper in
front of Isis has an unmistakably Egyptian head dress. But the contest
with the winged griffin is more Assyrian than Egyptian; the seat
whereon Isis sits recalls a well-known Assyrian type;[76] one of the
altars has a distinctly Assyrian character, while the band of
musicians, the Astarté figures standing in their shrines, and the
pillars which support, and frame in, the shrines are genuine Phœnician
contributions. Artistically this /patera/ is much upon a par with
those from Dali and Athiénau, which have been already described.

Our space will not admit of our pursuing this subject much further. We
cannot give descriptions of all the twenty /pateræ/,[77] pronounced by
the best critics to be Phœnician, which are contained in the museums
of Europe and America. Excellent representations of most of these
works of art will be found in Longpérier's "Musée Napoléon III.,"  in
M. Clermont-Ganneau's "Imagerie Phénicienne," and in the "Histoire de
l'Art dans l'Antiquité" of MM. Perrot et Chipiez. The bowls brought
from Larnaca, from Curium, and from Amathus are especially
interesting.[78] We must, however, conclude our survey with a single
specimen of the most elaborate kind of /patera/; and, this being the
case, we cannot hesitate to give the preference to the famous "Cup of
Præneste," which has been carefully figured and described in two of
the three works above cited.[79]

The cup in question consists of a thin plate of silver covered over
with a layer of gold; its greatest diameter is seven inches and three-
fifths. The under or outside is without ornament; the interior is
engraved with a number of small objects in low relief. In the centre,
and surrounded by a circle of beads, there is a subject to which we
shall presently have to return. The zone immediately outside this
medallion, which is not quite an inch in width, is filled with a
string of eight horses, all of them proceeding at a trot, and
following each other to the right. Over each horse two birds fly in
the same direction. The horses' tails are extraordinarily
conventional, consisting of a stem with branches, and resembling a
conventional palm branch. Outside this zone there is an exterior and a
wider one, which is bounded on its outer edge by a huge snake, whose
scaly length describes an almost exact circle, excepting towards the
tail, where there are some slight sinuosities. This serpent, whose
head reaches and a little passes the thin extremity of the tail, is
"drawn," says M. Clermont-Ganneau, "with the hand of a master."[80] It
has been compared[81] with the well-known Egyptian and Phœnician
symbol for the {kosmos} or universe, which was a serpent with its tail
in its mouth. "Naturally," he continues,[82] "the outer zone by its
very position offers the greatest room for development. The artist is
here at his ease, and having before him a field relatively so vast,
has represented on it a series of scenes, remarkably alike for the
style of their execution, the diversity of their subject-matter, the
number of the persons introduced, and the nature of the acts which
they accomplish. . . . The scenes, however, are not, as some have
imagined, a series of detached fantastic subjects, arbitrarily chosen
and capriciously grouped, a mere confused /mêlée/ of men, animals,
chariots, and other objects; on the contrary, they form a little
history, a plastic idyll, a story with a beginning, a middle, and an
end. It is a narrative divided into nine scenes." (1) An armed hero,
mounted in a car driven by a charioteer, quits in the morning a castle
or fortified town. He is going to hunt, and carries his bow in his
left hand. Over his head is an umbrella, the badge of his high rank,
and his defence against the mid-day sun. A quiver hangs at the side of
his chariot. He wears a conical cap, while the driver has his head
bare, and leans forwards over the front of the car, seeming to shake
the reins, and encourage the horses to mend their pace. (2) After the
car has proceeded a certain distance, the hunter espies a stag upon a
rocky hill. He stops his chariot, gets down, and leaving the driver in
charge of the vehicle, ensconces himself behind a tree, and thus
screened lets fly an arrow against the quarry, which strikes it midway
in the chest. (3) Weak and bleeding copiously, the stag attempts to
escape; but the hunter pursues and takes possession of him without
having to shoot a second time. (4) The hour is come now for a rest.
The sportsman has reached a wood, in which date-bearing palms are
intermingled with trees of a different kind. He fastens his game to
one of them, and proceeds to the skinning and the disembowelling.
Meanwhile, his attendant detaches the horses from the car, relieves
them of their harness, and proceeds to feed them from a portable
manger. The car, left to itself, is tilted back, and stands with its
pole in the air. (5) Food and drink having been prepared and placed on
two tables, or altars, the hunter, seated on a throne under the shadow
of his umbrella, pours a libation to the gods. They, on their part,
scent the feast and draw near, represented by the sun and moon--a
winged disk, and a crescent embracing a full orb. The feast is also
witnessed by a spirit of evil, in the shape of a huge baboon or
cynocephalous ape, who from a cavern at the foot of a wooded mountain,
whereon a stag and a hare are feeding, furtively surveys the ceremony.
(6) Remounting his chariot the hunter sets out on his return home,
when the baboon quits his concealment, and rushes after him,
threatening him with a huge stone. Hereupon a winged deity descends
from heaven, and lifting into the air chariot, horses, charioteer, and
hunter, enfolds them in an embrace and saves them. (7) The ape,
baffled, pursues his way; the chariot is replaced on the earth. The
hunter prepares his bow, places an arrow on the string, and hastily
pursues his enemy, who is speedily overtaken and thrown to the ground
by the horses. (8) The hunter dismounts, puts his foot upon the
prostrate ape, and gives him the /coup de grâce/ with a heavy axe or
mace. A bird of prey hovers near, ready to descend upon the carcase.
(9) The hero remounts his chariot, and returns to the castle or city
which he left in the morning.[83]

We have now to return to the medallion which forms the centre of the
cup. Within a circle of pearls or beads, similar to that separating
the two zones, is a round space about two inches in diameter, divided
into two compartments by a horizontal line. In the upper part are
contained three human figures, and the figure of a dog. At the extreme
left is a prisoner with a beard and long hair that falls upon his
shoulders. His entire body is naked. Behind him his two arms are
brought together, tied by a cord, and then firmly attached to a post.
His knees are bent, but do not reach the ground, and his feet are
placed with their soles uppermost against the post at its base. The
attitude is one which implies extreme suffering.[84] In front of the
prisoner, occupying the centre of the medallion, is the main figure of
the upper compartment, a warrior, armed with a spear, who pursues the
third figure, a fugitive, and seems to be thrusting his spear into the
man's back. Both have long hair, but are beardless; and wear the
/shenti/ for their sole garment. Between the legs of the main figure
is a dog of the jackal kind, which has his teeth fixed in the heels of
the fugitive, and arrests his flight. Below, in the second
compartment, are two figures only, a man and a dog. The man is
prostrate, and seems to be crawling along the ground, the dog stands
partly on him, and appears to be biting his left heel. The
interpretation which M. Clermont-Ganneau gives to this entire scene
lacks the probability which attaches to his explanation of the outer
scene. He suggests that the prisoner is the hunter of the other scene,
plundered and bound by his charioteer, who is hastening away, when he
is seized by his master's dog and arrested in his flight. The dog
gnaws off his right foot and then attacks the left, while the
fugitive, in order to escape his tormentor, has to crawl along the
ground. But M. Clermont-Ganneau himself distrusts his
interpretation,[85] while he has convinced no other scholar of its
soundness. Judicious critics will be content to wait the further
researches which he promises, whereby additional light may perhaps be
thrown on this obscure matter.

In its artistic character the "cup of Præneste" claims a high place
among the works of art probably or certainly assignable to the
Phœnicians. The relief is high; the forms, especially the animal ones,
are spirited and well-proportioned. The horses are especially good. As
M. Clermont-Ganneau says, "their forms and their movements are
indicated with a great deal of precision and truth."[86] They show
also a fair amount of variety; they stand, they walk, they trot, they
gallop at full speed, always truthfully and naturally. The stag, the
hare, and the dog are likewise well portrayed; the ape has less merit;
he is too human, too like a mere unkempt savage. The human forms are
about upon a par with those of the Assyrians and Egyptians, which have
evidently served for their models, the Assyrian for the outer zone,
the Egyptian for the medallion. The encircling snake, as already
observed, is a masterpiece. There is no better drawing in any of the
other /pateræ/. At best they equal, they certainly do not surpass, the
Prænestine specimen.

The intaglios of the Phœnicians are either on cylinders or on gems,
and can rarely be distinguished, unless they are accompanied by an
inscription, from the similar objects obtained in such abundance from
Babylonia and Assyria. They reproduce, with scarcely any variation,
the mythological figures and emblems native to those countries--the
forms of gods and priests, of spirits of good and evil, of kings
contending with lions, of sacred trees, winged circles, and the like--
scarcely ever introducing any novelty. The greater number of the
cylinders are very rudely cut. They have been worked simply by means
of a splinter of obsidian,[87] and are barbarous in execution, though
interesting to the student of archaic art. The subjoined are
specimens. No. 1 represents a four-winged genius of the Assyrian type,
bearded, and clad in a short tunic and a long robe, seizing with
either hand a winged griffin, or spirit of evil, and reducing them to
subjection. In the field, towards the two upper corners, are the same
four Phœnician characters, twice repeated; they designate, no doubt,
the owner of the cylinder, which he probably used as a seal, and are
read as /Harkhu/.[88] No. 2, which is better cut than No. 1,
represents a king of the Persian (Achæmenian) type,[89] who stands
between two rampant lions, and seizes each by the forelock. Behind the
second lion is a sacred tree of a type that is not uncommon; and
behind the tree is an inscription, which has been read as /l'Baletân/
--i.e. "(the seal) of Baletan."[90] This cylinder was found recently
in the Lebanon.[91] Nos. 3 and 4 come from Salamis in Cyprus, where
they were found by M. Alexandre Di Cesnola,[92] the brother of the
General. No. 3 represents a robed figure holding two nondescript
animals by the hind legs; the creatures writhe in his grasp, and turn
their heads towards him, as though wishing to bite. The remainder of
the field is filed with detached objects, scattered at random--two
human forms, a griffin, two heads of oxen, a bird, two balls, three
crosses, a sceptre, &c. The forms are, all of them, very rudely
traced. No. 4 resembles in general character No. 3, but is even ruder.
Three similar robed figures hold each other's hands and perhaps
execute a dance around some religious object. Two heads of oxen or
cows, with a disk between their horns, occupy the spaces intervening
between the upper parts of the figures. In the lower portion of the
field, the sun and moon fill the middle space, the sun, moon, and five
planets the spaces to the right and to the left. Another cylinder from
the same place (No. 5)[93] is tolerably well designed and engraved. It
shows us two persons, a man and a woman, in the act of presenting a
dove to a female, who is probably the goddess Astarté, and who
willingly receives it at their hands. Behind Astarté a seated lion
echoes the approval of the goddess by raising one of his fore paws,
while a griffin, who wholly disapproves of the offering, turns his
back in disgust.

On another cylinder, which is certainly Phœnician, a rude
representation of a sacred tree occupies the central position. To the
left stands a worshipper with the right hand upraised, clad in a very
common Assyrian dress. Over the sacred tree is a coarse specimen of
the winged circle or disk, with head and tail, and fluttering ends of
ribbon.[94] On either side stand two winged genii, dressed in long
robes, and tall stiff caps, such as are often seen on the heads of
Persians in the Persepolitan sculptures, and on the darics.[95] In the
field is a Phœnician inscription, which is read as {...} or /Irphael
ben Hor'adad/, "Irphael, the son of Horadad."[96]

Phœnician cylinders are in glass, green serpentine, cornaline, black
hæmatite, steatite, and green jasper.[97] They are scratched rather
than deeply cut, and cannot be said ever to attain to any considerable
artistic beauty. Those which have been here given are among the best;
and they certainly fall short, both in design and workmanship, of many
Assyrian, Babylonian, and even Persian specimens. 

The gems, on the other hand, are in many cases quite equal to the
Assyrian. There is one of special merit, which has been pronounced "an
exquisite specimen of Phœnician lapidary art,"[98] figured by General
Di Cesnola in his "Cyprus."[99] Two men in regular Assyrian costume,
standing on either side of a "Sacred Tree," grasp, each of them, a
branch of it. Above is a winged circle, with the wings curved so as to
suit the shape of the gem. Below is an ornament, which is six times
repeated, like the blossom of a flower; and below this is a
trelliswork. The whole is cut deeply and sharply. Its Phœnician
authorship is assured by its being an almost exact repetition of a
group upon the silver patera found at Amathus.[100]

Of other gems equally well engraved the following are specimens. No. 1
is a scarab of cornaline found by M. de Vogüé in Phœnicia Proper.[101]
Two male figures in Assyrian costume face each other, their advanced
feet crossing. Both hold in one hand the /ankh/ or symbol of life. One
has in the left hand what is thought to be a lotus blossom. The other
has the right hand raised in the usual attitude of adoration. Between
the figures, wherever there was space for them, are Phœnician
characters, which are read as {...}, or /l'Beka/--i.e. "(the seal) of
Beka."[102] No. 2, which has been set in a ring, is one of the many
scarabs brought by General Di Cesnola from Cyprus.[103] It contains
the figure of a hind, suckling her fawn, and is very delicately
carved. The hind, however, is in an impossible attitude, the forelegs
being thrown forwards, probably in order to prevent them from
interfering with the figure of the fawn. Above the hind is an
inscription, which appears to be in the Cyprian character, and which
gives (probably) the name of the owner. No. 3 introduces us to
domestic life. A grand lady, of Tyre perhaps or Sidon,[104] by name
Akhot-melek, seated upon an elegant throne, with her feet upon a
footstool, and dressed in a long robe which envelops the whole of her
figure, receives at the hands of a female attendant a bowl or wine-
cup, which the latter has just filled from an /œnochoë/ of elegant
shape, still held in her left hand. The attendant wears a striped robe
reaching to the feet, and over it a tunic fastened round the waist
with a belt. Her hair flows down on her shoulders, while that of her
mistress is confined by a band, from which depends an ample veil,
enveloping the cheeks, the back of the head, and the chin. We are told
that such veils are still worn in the Phœnician country.[105] An
inscription, in a late form of the Phœnician character, surrounds the
two figures, and is read as {...} or /l'Akhot-melek ishat Joshua(?)/--
i.e. "(the seal) of Akhot-melek, wife of Joshua."[106] No. 4 contains
the figure of a lion, cut with much spirit. MM. Perrot et Chipiez say
of it--"Among the numerous representations of lions that have been
discovered in Phœnicia, there is none which can be placed on a par
with that on the scarab bearing the name of 'Ashenel: small as it is,
this lion has something of the physiognomy of those magnificent ones
which we have borrowed from the bas-reliefs of the Assyrians. Still,
the intaglio is in other respects decidedly Phœnician and not
Assyrian. Observe, for instance, the beetle with the wings expanded,
which fills up the lower part of the field; this is a /motive/
borrowed from Egypt, which a Ninevite lapidary would certainly not
have put in such a place."[107] The Phœnician inscription takes away
all doubt as to the nationality. It reads as {...}, or /'Ashenêl/, and
no doubt designates the owner. No. 5 is beautifully engraved on a
chalcedony. It represents a stag attacked by a griffin, which has
jumped suddenly on its back. The drawing is excellent, both of the
real and of the imaginary animal, and leaves nothing to be desired.
The inscription, which occupies the upper part of the field to the
right, is in Cyprian characters, and shows that the gem was the signet
of a certain Akestodaros.[108]

There are some Phœnician gems which are interesting from their subject
matter without being especially good as works of art. One of these
contains a representation of two men fighting.[109] Both are armed
with two spears, and both carry round shields or bucklers. The warrior
to the right wears a conical helmet, and is thought to be a native
Cyprian;[110] he carries a shield without an /umbo/ or boss. His
adversary on the left wears a loose cap, or hood, the {pilos apages}
of Herodotus,[111] and has a prominent /umbo/ in the middle of his
shield. He probably represents a Persian, and appears to have received
a wound from his antagonist, which is causing him to sink to the
ground. This gem was found at Curium in Cyprus by General Di Cesnola.

Another, found at the same place, exhibits a warrior, or a hunter,
going forth to battle or to the chase in his chariot.[112] A large
quiver full of arrows is slung at each side of his car. The warrior
and his horse (one only is seen) are rudely drawn, but the chariot is
very distinctly made out, and has a wheel of an Assyrian type. The
Salaminians of Cyprus were famous for their war chariots,[113] of
which this may be a representation.

The island of Sardinia has furnished a prodigious number of Phœnician
seals. A single private collection contains as many as six
hundred.[114] They are mostly scarabs, and the type of them is mostly
Egyptian. Sometimes they bear the forms of Egyptian gods, as Horus, or
Thoth, or Anubis;[115] sometimes cartouches with the names of kings as
Menkara, Thothmes III., Amenophis III., Seti I., &c.;[116] sometimes
mere sacred emblems, as the winged uræus, the disk between two
uræi,[117] and the like. Occasionally there is the representation of a
scene with which the Egyptian bas-reliefs have made us familiar:[118]
a warrior has caught hold of his vanquished and kneeling enemy by a
lock of his hair, and threatens him with an axe or mace, which he
brandishes above his head. Or a lion takes the place of the captive
man, and is menaced in the same way. Human figures struggling with
lions, and lions killing wild bulls, are also common;[119] but the
type in these cases is less Egyptian than Oriental.

Phœnician painting was not, like Egyptian, displayed upon the walls of
temples, nor was it, like Greek, the production of actual pictures for
the decoration of houses. It was employed to a certain extent on
statues, not so as to cover the entire figure, but with delicacy and
discretion, for the marking out of certain details, and the
emphasising of certain parts of the design.[120] The hair and beard
were often painted a brownish red; the pupil of the eye was marked by
means of colour; and robes had often a border of red or blue.
Statuettes were tinted more generally, whole vestments being sometimes
coloured red or green,[121] and a gay effect being produced, which is
said to be agreeable and harmonious.[122] But the nearest approach to
painting proper which was made by the Phœnicians was upon their
vessels in clay, in terra-cotta, and in alabaster. Here, though, the
ornamentation was sometimes merely by patterns or bands,[123] there
were occasionally real attempts to depict animal and human forms,
which, if not very successful, still possess considerable interest.
The noble amphora from Curium, figured by Di Cesnola,[124] contains
above forty representations of horses, and nearly as many of birds.
The shape of the horse is exceedingly conventional, the whole form
being attenuated in the highest degree; but the animal is drawn with
spirit, and the departure from nature is clearly intentional. In the
animals that are pasturing, the general attitude is well seized; the
movement is exactly that of the horse when he stretches his neck to
reach and crop the grass.[125] In the birds there is equal spirit and
greater truth to nature: they are in various attitudes, preening their
feathers, pecking the ground, standing with head erect in the usual
way. Other vases contain figures of cows, goats, stags, fish and birds
of various kinds, while one has an attempt at a hippopotamus. The
attempts to represent the human form are certainly not happy; they
remind us of the more ambitious efforts of Chinese and Japanese art.



CHAPTER VIII

INDUSTRIAL ART AND MANUFACTURES

  Phœnician textile fabrics, embroidered or dyed--Account of the
  chief Phœnician dye--Mollusks from which the purple was obtained--
  Mode of obtaining them--Mode of procuring the dye from them--
  Process of dyeing--Variety of the tints--Manufacture of glass--
  Story of its invention--Three kinds of Phœnician glass--
  1. Transparent colourless glass--2. Semi-transparent coloured
  glass--3. Opaque glass, much like porcelain--Description of
  objects in glass--Methods pursued in the manufacture--Phœnician
  ceramic art--Earliest specimens--Vases with geometrical designs--
  Incised patterning--Later efforts--Use of enamel--Great amphora of
  Curium--Phœnician ceramic art disappointing--Ordinary metallurgy--
  Implements--Weapons--Toilet articles--Lamp-stands and tripods--
  Works in iron and lead.

Phœnicia was celebrated from a remote antiquity for the manufacture of
textile fabrics. The materials which she employed for them were wool,
linen yarn, perhaps cotton, and, in the later period of her commercial
prosperity, silk. The "white wool" of Syria was supplied to her in
abundance by the merchants of Damascus,[1] and wool of lambs, rams,
and goats seems also to have been furnished by the more distant parts
of Arabia.[2] Linen yarn may have been imported from Egypt, where it
was largely manufactured, and was of excellent quality;[3] while raw
silk is said to have been "brought to Tyre and Berytus by the Persian
merchants, and there both dyed and woven into cloaks."[4] The price of
silk was very high, and it was customary in Phœnicia to intermix the
precious material either with linen or with cotton;[5] as is still
done to a certain extent in modern times. It is perhaps doubtful
whether, so far as the mere fabric of stuffs was concerned, the
products of the Phœnician looms were at all superior to those which
Egypt and Babylonia furnished, much less to those which came from
India, and passed under the name of /Sindones/. Two things gave to the
Phœnician stuffs that high reputation which caused them to be more
sought for than any others; and these were, first, the brilliancy and
beauty of their colours, and, secondly, the delicacy with which they
were in many instances embroidered. We have not much trace of
Phœnician embroidery on the representations of dresses that have come
down to us; but the testimony of the ancients is unimpeachable,[6] and
we may regard it as certain that the art of embroidery, known at a
very early date to the Hebrews,[7] was cultivated with great success
by their Phœnician neighbours, and under their auspices reached a high
point of perfection. The character of the decoration is to be gathered
from the extant statues and bas-reliefs, from the representations on
pateræ, on cups, dishes, and gems. There was a tendency to divide the
surface to be ornamented into parallel stripes or bands, and to repeat
along the line a single object, or two alternately. Rosettes, monsters
of various kinds, winged globes with uræi, scarabs, sacred trees, and
garlands or blossoms of the lotus were the ordinary "motives."[8]
Occasionally human figures might be introduced, and animal forms even
more frequently; but a stiff conventionalism prevailed, the same
figures were constantly repeated, and the figures themselves had in
few cases much beauty.

The brilliancy and beauty of the Phœnician coloured stuffs resulted
from the excellency of their dyes. Here we touch a second branch of
their industrial skill, for the principal dyes used were originally
invented and continuously fabricated by the Phœnicians themselves, not
imported from any foreign country. Nature had placed along the
Phœnician coast, or at any rate along a great portion of it, an
inexhaustible supply of certain shell-fish, or molluscs, which
contained as a part of their internal economy a colouring fluid
possessing remarkable, and indeed unique, qualities. Some account has
been already given of the species which are thought to have been
anciently most esteemed. They belong, mainly, to the two allied
families of the /Murex/ and the /Buccinum/ or /Purpura/. Eight species
of the former, and six of the latter, having their habitat in the
Mediterranean, have been distinguished by some naturalists;[9] but two
of the former only, and one of the latter, appear to have attracted
the attention of the Phœnicians. The /Murex brandaris/ is now thought
to have borne away the palm from all the others; it is extremely
common upon the coast; and enormous heaps of the shells are found,
especially in the vicinity of Tyre, crushed and broken--the débris, as
it would seem, cast away by the manufacturers of old.[10] The /Murex
trunculus/, according to some, is just as abundant, in a crushed
state, in the vicinity of Sidon, great banks of it existing, which are
a hundred yards long and several yards thick.[11] It is a more spinous
shell than the /M. brandaris/, having numerous projecting points, and
a generally rough and rugged appearance. The /Purpura/ employed seems
to have been the /P. lapillus/, a mollusc not confined to the
Mediterranean, but one which frequents also our own shores, and was
once turned to some account in Ireland.[12] The varieties of the /P.
lapillus/ differ considerably. Some are nearly white, some greyish,
others buff striped with brown. Some, again, are smooth, others nearly
as rough as the /Murex trunculus/. The /Helix ianthina/, which is
included by certain writers among the molluscs employed for dyeing
purposes by the Phœnicians,[13] is a shell of a completely different
character, smooth and delicate, much resembling that of an ordinary
land snail, and small compared to the others. It is not certain,
however, that the /helix/, though abounding in the Eastern
Mediterranean,[14] ever attracted the notice of the Phœnicians.

The molluscs needed by the Phœnician dyers were not obtained without
some difficulty. As the Mediterranean has no tides, it does not
uncover its shores at low water like the ocean, or invite man to rifle
them. The coveted shell-fish, in most instances, preferred tolerably
deep water; and to procure them in any quantity it was necessary that
they should be fished up from a depth of some fathoms. The mode in
which they were captured was the following. A long rope was let down
into the sea, with baskets of reeds or rushes attached to it at
intervals, constructed like our lobster-traps or eel-baskets, with an
opening that yielded easily to pressure from the outside, but resisted
pressure from the inside, and made escape, when once the trap was
entered, impossible. The baskets were baited with mussels or frogs,
both of which had great attractions for the /Purpuræ/, and were seized
and devoured with avidity. At the upper end of the rope was attached
to a large piece of cork, which, even when the baskets were full,
could not be drawn under water. It was usual to set the traps in the
evening, and after waiting a night, or sometimes a night and a day, to
draw them up to the surface, when they were generally found to be full
of the coveted shell-fish.[15]

There were two ways in which the dye was obtained from the molluscs.
Sometimes a hole was broken in the side of the shell, and the fish
taken out entire.[16] The /sac/ containing the colouring matter, which
is a sort of vein, beginning at the head of the animal, and following
the tortuous line of the body as it twists through the spiral
shell,[17] was then carefully extracted, either while the mollusc was
still alive, or as soon as possible after death, as otherwise the
quality of the dye was impaired. This plan was pursued more especially
with the larger species of /Purpuræ/, where the /sac/ attained a
certain size; while with a smaller kinds a different method was
followed. In their case no attempt was made to extract the /sac/, but
the entire fish was crushed, together with its shell, and after salt
had been added in the proportion of twenty ounces to a hundred pounds
of the pulp, three days were allowed for maceration; heat was then
applied, and when, by repeated skimming, the coarse particles had been
removed, the dye was left in a liquid state at the bottom. It was
necessary that the vessel in which this final process took place
should be of lead, and not of bronze or iron, since those metals gave
the dye a disagreeable tinge.[18]

The colouring matter contained in the /sac/ of the /Purpuræ/ is a
liquid of a creamy consistency, and of a yellowish-white hue. On
extraction, it is at first decidedly yellow; then after a little time
it becomes green; and, finally, it settles into some shade of violet
or purple. Chemical analysis has shown that in the case of the /Murex
trunculus/ the liquid is composed of two elementary substances, one
being cyanic acid, which is of a blue or azure colour, and the other
being purpuric oxide, which is a bright red.[19] In the case of the
/Murex brandaris/ one element only has been found: it is an oxide,
which has received the name of /oxyde tyrien/.[20] No naturalist has
as yet discovered what purpose the liquid serves in the economy, or in
the preservation, of the animal; it is certainly not exuded, as sepia
is by the cuttle-fish, to cloud the water in the neighbourhood, and
enable the creature to conceal itself.

Concerning the Phœnician process of dyeing, the accounts which have
come down to us are at once confused and incomplete. Nothing is said
with respect to their employment of mordants, either acid or alkali,
and yet it is almost certain that they must have used one or the
other, or both, to fix the colours, and render them permanent. The
/gamins/ of Tyre employ to this day mordants of each sort;[21] and an
alkali derived from seaweed is mentioned by Pliny as made use of for
fixing some dyes,[22] though he does not distinctly tell us that it
was known to the Phœnicians or employed in fixing the purple. What we
chiefly learn from this writer as to the dyeing process is[23]--first,
that sometimes the liquid derived from the /murex/ only, sometimes
that of the /purpura/ or /buccinum/ only, was applied to the material
which it was wished to colour, while the most approved hue was
produced by an application of both dyes separately. Secondly, we are
told that the material, whatever it might be, was steeped in the dye
for a certain number of hours, then withdrawn for a while, and
afterwards returned to the vat and steeped a second time. The best
Tyrian cloths were called /Dibapha/, i.e. "twice dipped;" and for the
production of the true "Tyrian purple" it was necessary that the dye
obtained from the /Buccinum/ should be used after that from the
/Murex/ had been applied. The /Murex/ alone gave a dye that was firm,
and reckoned moderately good; but the /Buccinum/ alone was weak, and
easily washed out.

The actual tints produced from the shell-fish appear to have ranged
from blue, through violet and purple, to crimson and rose.[24] Scarlet
could not be obtained, but was yielded by the cochineal insect. Even
for the brighter sorts of crimson some admixture of the cochineal dye
was necessary.[25] The violet tint was not generally greatly prized,
though there was a period in the reign of Augustus when it was the
fashion;[26] redder hues were commonly preferred; and the choicest of
all is described as "a rich, dark purple, the colour of coagulated
blood."[27] A deep crimson was also in request, and seems frequently
to be intended when the term purple ({porphureos}, /purpureus/) is
used.

A third industry greatly affected by the Phœnicians was the
manufacture of glass. According to Pliny,[28] the first discovery of
the substance was made upon the Phœnician coast by a body of sailors
whom he no doubt regarded as Phœnicians. These persons had brought a
cargo of natrum, which is the subcarbonate of soda, to the Syrian
coast in the vicinity of Acre, and had gone ashore at the mouth of the
river Belus to cook their dinner. Having lighted a fire upon the sand,
they looked about for some stones to prop up their cooking utensils,
but finding none, or none convenient for the purpose, they bethought
themselves of utilising for the occasion some of the blocks of natrum 
with which their ship was laden. These were placed close to the fire,
and the heat was sufficient to melt a portion of one of them, which,
mixing with the siliceous sand at its base, produced a stream of
glass. There is nothing impossible or even very improbable in this
story; but we may question whether the scene of it is rightly placed.
Glass was manufactured in Egypt many centuries before the probable
date of the Phœnician occupation of the Mediterranean coast; and, if
the honour of the invention is to be assigned to a particular people,
the Egyptians would seem to have the best claim to it. The process of
glass-blowing is represented in tombs at Beni Hassan of very great
antiquity,[29] and a specimen of Egyptian glass is in existence
bearing the name of a Usurtasen, a king of the twelfth dynasty.[30]
Natrum, moreover, was an Egyptian product, well known from a remote
date, being the chief ingredient used in the various processes of
embalming.[31] Phœnicia has no natrum, and not even any vegetable
alkali readily procurable in considerable quantity. There /may have
been/ an accidental discovery of glass in Phœnicia, but priority of
discovery belonged almost certainly to Egypt; and it is, upon the
whole, most probable that Phœnicia derived from Egypt her knowledge
both of the substance itself and of the method of making it.

Still, there can be no doubt that the manufacture was one on which the
Phœnicians eagerly seized, and which they carried out on a large scale
and very successfully. Sidon, according to the ancients,[32] was the
chief seat of the industry; but the best sand is found near Tyre, and
both Tyre and Sarepta also seem to have been among the places where
glassworks were early established. At Sarepta extensive banks of
/débris/ have been found, consisting of broken glass of many colours,
the waste beyond all doubt of a great glass manufactory;[33] at Tyre,
the traces of the industry are less extensive,[34] but on the other
hand we have historical evidence that it continued to be practised
there into the middle ages.[35]

The glass produced by the Phœnicians was of three kinds: first,
transparent colourless glass, which the eye could see through;
secondly, translucent coloured glass, through which light could pass,
though the eye could not penetrate it so as to distinguish objects;
and, thirdly, opaque glass, scarcely distinguishable from porcelain.
Transparent glass was employed for mirrors, round plates being cast,
which made very tolerable looking-glasses,[36] when covered at the
back by thin sheets of metal, and also for common objects, such as
vases, urns, bottles, and jugs, which have been yielded in abundance
by tombs of a somewhat late date in Cyprus.[37] No great store,
however, seems to have been set upon transparency, in which the
Oriental eye saw no beauty; and the objects which modern research has
recovered under this head at Tyre, in Cyprus, and elsewhere, seem the
work of comparatively rude artists, and have little æsthetic merit.
The shapes, however, are not inelegant.

The most beautiful of the objects in glass produced by the Phœnicians
are the translucent or semi-transparent vessels of different kinds,
most of them variously coloured, which have been found in Cyprus, at
Camirus in Rhodes, and on the Syrian coast, near Beyrout and
elsewhere.[38] These comprise small flasks or bottles, from three to
six inches long, probably intended to contain perfumes; small jugs
(œnochoæ) from three inches in height to five inches; vases of about
the same size; amphoræ pointed at the lower extremity; and other
varieties. They are coloured, generally, either in longitudinal or in
horizontal stripes and bands; but the bands often deviate from the
straight line into zig-zags, which are always more or less irregular,
like the zig-zags of the Norman builders, while sometimes they are
deflected into crescents, or other curves, as particularly one
resembling a willow-leaf. The colours are not very vivid, but are
pleasing and well-contrasted; they are chiefly five--white, blue,
yellow, green, and a purplish brown. Red scarcely appears, except in a
very pale, pinkish form; and even in this form it is uncommon. Blue,
on the other hand, is greatly affected, being sometimes used in the
patterns, often taken for the ground, and occasionally, in two tints,
forming both groundwork and ornamentation.[39] It is not often that
more than three hues are found on the same vessel, and sometimes the
hues employed are only two. There are instances, however, and very
admirable instances, of the employment, on a single vessel, of four
hues.[40]

The colours were obtained, commonly, at any rate, from metallic
oxides. The ordinary blue employed is cobalt, though it is suspected
that there was an occasional use of copper. Copper certainly furnished
the greens, while manganese gave the brown, which shades off into
purple and into black. The beautiful milky white which forms the
ground tint of some vases is believed to have been derived from the
oxide of tin, or else from phosphate of chalk. It is said that the
colouring matter of the patterns does not extend through the entire
thickness of the glass, but lies only on the outer surface, being a
later addition to the vessels as first made.

Translucent coloured glass was also largely produced by the Phœnicians
for beads and other ornaments, and also for the imitation of gems. The
huge emerald of which Herodotus speaks,[41] as "shining with great
brilliancy at night" in the temple of Melkarth at Tyre, was probably a
glass cylinder, into which a lamb was introduced by the priests. In
Phœnician times the pretended stone is quite as often a glass paste as
a real gem, and the case is the same with the scarabs so largely used
as seals. In Phœnician necklaces, glass beads alternate frequently
with real agates, onyxes, and crystals; while sometimes glass in
various shapes is the only material employed. A necklace found at
Tharros in Sardinia, and now in the collection of the Louvre, which is
believed to be of Phœnician manufacture, is composed of above forty
beads, two cylinders, four pendants representing heads of bulls, and
one representing the face of a man, all of glass.[42] Another, found
by M. Renan in Phœnicia itself, is made up of glass beads imitating
pearls, intermixed with beads of cornaline and agate.[43]

Another class of glass ornaments consists of small flat /plaques/ or
plates, pierced with a number of fine holes, which appear to have been
sewn upon garments. These are usually patterned, sometimes with
spirals, sometimes with rosettes, occasionally, though rarely, with
figures. Messrs. Perrot and Chipiez represent one in their great work
upon ancient art,[44] where almost the entire field is occupied by a
winged griffin, standing upright on its two hind legs, and crowned
with a striped cap, or turban.

Phœnician opaque glass is comparatively rare, and possesses but little
beauty. It was rendered opaque in various ways. Messrs. Perrot and
Chipiez found that in a statue of Serapis, which they analysed, the
glass was mixed with bronze in the proportions of ten to three. An
opaque material of a handsome red colour was thus produced, which was
heavy and exceedingly hard.[45]

The methods pursued by the Phœnician glass-manufacturers were probably
much the same as those which are still employed for the production of
similar objects, and involved the use of similar implements, as the
blowpipe, the lathe, and the graver. The materials having been
procured, they were fused together in a crucible or melting-pot by the
heat of a powerful furnace. A blowpipe was then introduced into the
viscous mass, a portion of which readily attached itself to the
implement, and so much glass was withdrawn as was deemed sufficient
for the object which it was designed to manufacture. The blower then
set to work, and blew hard into the pipe until the glass at its lower
extremity began to expand and gradually took a pear-shaped form, the
material partially coolling and hardening, but still retaining a good
deal of softness and pliability. While in this condition, it was
detached from the pipe, and modelled with pincers or with the hand
into the shape required, after which it was polished, and perhaps
sometimes cut by means of the turning-lathe. Sand and emery were the
chief polishers, and by their help a surface was produced, with which
little fault could be found, being smooth, uniform, and brilliant.
Thus the vessel was formed, and if no further ornament was required,
the manufacture was complete--a jug, vase, alabastron, amphora, was
produced, either transparent or of a single uniform tint, which might
be white, blue, brown, green, &c., according to the particular oxide
which had been thrown, with the silica and alkali, into the crucible.
Generally, however, the manufacturer was not content with so simple a
product: he aimed not merely at utility, but at beauty, and proceeded
to adorn the work of his hands--whatever it was--with patterns which
were for the most part in good taste and highly pleasing. These
patterns he first scratched on the outer surface of the vessel with a
graving tool; then, when he had made his depressions deep enough, he
took threads of coloured glass, and having filled up with the threads
the depressions which he had made, he subjected the vessel once more
to such a heat that the threads were fused, and attached themselves to
the ground on which they had been laid. In melting they would
generally more than fill the cavities, overflowing them, and
protruding from them, whence it was for the most part necessary to
repeat the polishing process, and to bring by means of abrasion the
entire surface once more into uniformity. There are cases where this
has been incompletely done and where the patterns project; there are
others where the threads have never thoroughly melted into the ground,
and where in the course of time they have partially detached
themselves from it; but in general the fusion and subsequent polishing
have been all that could be wished, and the patterns are perfectly
level with the ground and seem one with it.[46]

The running of liquid glass into moulds, so common nowadays, does not
seem to have been practised by the Phœnicians, perhaps because their
furnaces were not sufficiently hot to produce complete liquefaction.
But--if this was so--the pressure of the viscous material into moulds
cannot have been unknown, since we have evidence of the existence of
moulds,[47] and there are cases where several specimens of an object
have evidently issued from a single matrix.[48] Beads, cylinders,
pendants, scarabs, amulets, were probably, all of them, made in this
way, sometimes in translucent, sometimes in semi-opaque glass, as
perhaps were also the /plaques/ which have been already described.

The ceramic art of the Phœnicians is not very remarkable. Phœnicia
Proper is deficient in clay of a superior character, and it was
probably a very ordinary and coarse kind of pottery that the Phœnician
merchants of early times exported regularly in their trading voyages,
both inside and outside the Mediterranean. We hear of their carrying
this cheap earthenware northwards to the Cassiterides or Scilly
Islands,[49] and southwards to the isle of Cerné, which is probably
Arguin, on the West African coast;[50] nor can we doubt that they
supplied it also to the uncivilised races of the Mediterranean--the
Illyrians, Ligurians, Sicels, Sards, Corsicans, Spaniards, Libyans.
But the fragile nature of the material, and its slight value, have
caused its entire disappearance in the course of centuries, unless in
the shape of small fragments; nor are these fragments readily
distinguishable from those whose origin is different. Phœnicia Proper
has furnished no earthen vessels, either whole or in pieces, that can
be assigned to a time earlier than the Greco-Roman period,[51] nor
have any such vessels been found hitherto on Phœnician sites either in
Sardinia, or in Corsica, or in Spain, or Africa, or Sicily, or Malta,
or Gozzo. The only places that have hitherto furnished earthen vases
or other vessels presumably Phœnician are Jerusalem, Camirus in
Rhodes, and Cyprus; and it is from the specimens found at these sites
that we must form our estimate of the Phœnician pottery.

The earliest specimens are of a moderately good clay, unglazed. They
are regular in shape, being made by the help of a wheel, and for the
most part not inelegant, though they cannot be said to possess any
remarkable beauty. Many are without ornament of any kind, being
apparently mere jars, used for the storing away of oil or wine; they
have sometimes painted or scratched upon them, in Phœnician
characters, the name of the maker or owner. A few rise somewhat above
the ordinary level, having handles of some elegance, and being painted
with designs and patterns, generally of a geometrical character. A
vase about six inches high, found at Jerusalem, has, between
horizontal bands, a series of geometric patterns, squares, octagons,
lozenges, triangles, pleasingly arranged, and painted in brown upon a
ground which is of a dull grey. At the top are two rude handles,
between which runs a line of zig-zag, while at the bottom is a sort of
stand or base. The shape is heavy and inelegant.[52]

Another vase of a similar character to this, but superior in many
respects, was found by General Di Cesnola at Dali (Idalium), and is
figured in his "Cyprus."[53] This vase has the shape of an urn, and is
ornamented with horizontal bands, except towards the middle, where it
has its greatest diameter, and exhibits a series of geometric designs.
In the centre is a lozenge, divided into four smaller lozenges by a
St. Andrew's cross; other compartments are triangular, and are filled
with a chequer of black and white, resembling the squares of a
chessboard. Beyond, on either side, are vertical bands, diversified
with a lozenge ornament. Two hands succeed, of a shape that is thought
to have "a certain elegance."[54] There is a rim, which might receive
a cover, at top, and at bottom a short pedestal. The height of the
vase is about thirteen inches.

In many of the Cyprian vases having a geometric decoration, the
figures are not painted on the surface but impressed or incised.
Messrs. Perrot and Chipiez regard this form of ornamentation as the
earliest; but the beauty and finish of several vases on which it
occurs is against the supposition. There is scarcely to be found, even
in the range of Greek art, a more elegant form than that of the jug in
black clay brought by General Di Cesnola from Alambra and figured both
in his "Cyprus"[55] and in the "Histoire de l'Art."[56] Yet its
ornamentation is incised. If, then, incised patterning preceded
painted in Phœnicia, at any rate it held its ground after painting was
introduced, and continued in vogue even to the time when Greek taste
had largely influenced Phœnician art of every description.

The finest Phœnician efforts in ceramic art resemble either the best
Egyptian or the best Greek. As the art advanced, the advantage of a
rich glaze was appreciated, and specimens which seem to be Phœnician
have all the delicacy and beauty of the best Egyptian faïence. A cup
found at Idalium, plain on the outside, is covered internally with a
green enamel, on which are patterns and designs in black.[57] In a
medallion at the bottom of the cup is the representation of a marshy
tract overgrown with the papyrus plant, whereof we see both the leaves
and blossoms, while among them, rushing at full speed, is the form of
a wild boar. The rest of the ornamentation consists chiefly of
concentric circles; but between two of the circles is left a tolerably
broad ring, which has a pattern consisting of a series of broadish
leaves pointing towards the cup's centre. Nothing can be more
delicate, or in better taste, than the entire design.

The most splendid of all the Cyprian vases was found at Curium, and
has been already represented in this volume. It is an amphora of large
dimensions, ornamented in part with geometrical designs, in part with
compartments, in which are represented horses and birds. The form, the
designs, and the general physiognomy of the amphora are considered to
be in close accordance with Athenian vases of the most antique school.
The resemblance is so great that some have supposed the vase to have
been an importation from Attica into Cyprus;[58] but such conjectures
are always hazardous; and the principal motives of the design are so
frequent on the Cyprian vases, that the native origin of the vessel is
at least possible, and the judgment of some of the best critics seems
to incline in this direction.

Still, on the whole, the Cyprian ceramic art is somewhat
disappointing. What is original in it is either grotesque, as the
vases in the shape of animals,[59] or those crowned by human
heads,[60] or those again which have for spout a female figure pouring
liquid out of a jug.[61] What is superior has the appearance of having
been borrowed. Egyptian, Assyrian, and Greek art, each in turn,
furnished shapes, designs, and patterns to the Phœnician potters, who
readily adopted from any and every quarter the forms and decorations
which hit their fancy. Their fancy was, predominantly, for the
/bizarre/ and the extravagant. Vases in the shape of helmets, in the
shape of barrels, in the shape of human heads,[62] have little
fitness, and in the Cyprian specimens have little beauty; the mixture
of Assyrian with Egyptian forms is incongruous; the birds and beasts
represented are drawn with studied quaintness, a quaintness recalling
the art of China and Japan. If there is elegance in some of the forms,
it is seldom a very pronounced elegance; and, where the taste is best,
the suspicion continually arises that a foreign model has been
imitated. Moreover, from first to last the art makes little progress.
There seems to have been an arrest of development.[63] The early steps
are taken, but at a certain point stagnation sets in; there is no
further attempt to improve or advance; the artists are content to
repeat themselves, and reproduce the patterns of the past. Perhaps
there was no demand for ceramic art of a higher order. At any rate,
progress ceases, and while Greece was rising to her grandest efforts,
Cyprus, and Phœnicia generally, were content to remain stationary.

Besides their ornamental metallurgy, which has been treated of in a
former chapter, the Phœnicians largely employed several metals,
especially bronze and copper, in the fabrication of vessels for
ordinary use, of implements, arms, toilet articles, furniture, &c. The
vessels include pateræ, bowls, jugs, amphoræ, and cups;[64] the
implements, hatchets, adzes, knives, and sickles;[65] the arms,
spearheads, arrowheads, daggers, battle-axes, helmets, and
shields;[66] the toilet articles, mirrors, hand-bells, buckles,
candlesticks, &c.;[67] the furniture, tall candelabra, tripods, and
thrones.[68] The bronze is of an excellent quality, having generally
about nine parts of copper to one of tin; and there is reason to
believe that by the skilful tempering of the Phœnician metallurgists,
it attained a hardness which was not often given it by others. The
Cyprian shields were remarkable. They were of a round shape, slightly
convex, and instead of the ordinary boss, had a long projecting cone
in the centre. An actual shield, with the cone perfect, was found by
General Di Cesnola at Amathus,[69] and a projection of the same kind
is seen in several of the Sardinian bronze and terra-cotta
statuettes.[70] Shields were sometimes elaborately embossed, in part
with patterning, in part with animal and vegetable forms.[71] Helmets
were also embossed with care, and sometimes inscribed with the name of
the maker or the owner.[72]

Some remains of swords, probably Phœnician, have been found in
Sardinia. They vary from two feet seven inches to four feet two inches
in length.[73] The blade is commonly straight, and very thick in the
centre, but tapers off on both sides to a sharp edge. The point is
blunt, so that the intention cannot have been to use the weapon both
for cutting and thrusting, but only for the former. It would scarcely
make such a clean cut as a modern broadsword, but would no doubt be
equally effectual for killing or disabling. Another weapon, found in
Sardinia, and sometimes called a sword, is more properly a knife or
dagger. In length it does not exceed seven or eight inches, and of
this length more than a third is occupied by the handle.[74] Below the
handle the blade broadens for about an inch or an inch and a half;
after this it contracts, and tapers gently to a sharp point. Such a
weapon appears sometimes in the hand of a statuette.[75]

The bronze articles of the toilet recovered by recent researches in
Cyprus and elsewhere are remarkable. The handle of a mirror found in
Cyprus, and now in the Museum of New York, possesses considerable
merit. It consists mainly of a female figure, naked, and standing upon
a frog.[76] In her hands she holds a pair of cymbals, which she is in
the act of striking together. A ribbon, passed over her left shoulder,
is carried through a ring, from which hangs a seal. On her arms and
shoulders appear to have stood two lions, which formed side supports
to the mirror that was attached to the figure's head. If the face of
the cymbal-player cannot boast of much beauty, and her figure is
thought to "lack distinction," still it is granted that the /tout
ensemble/ of the work was not without originality, and may have
possessed a certain amount of elegance.[77] The frog is particularly
well modelled.

Some candlesticks found in the Treasury of Curium,[78] and a tripod
from the same place, seem to deserve a short notice. The candlesticks
stand upon a sort of short pillar as a base, above which is the
blossom of a flower inverted, a favourite Phœnician ornament.[79] From
this rises the lamp-stand, composed of three leaves, which curl
outwards, and support between them a ring into which the bottom of the
lamp fitted. The tripod[80] is more elaborate. The legs, which are
fluted, bulge considerably at the top, after which they bend inwards,
and form a curve like one half of a Cupid's bow. To retain them in
place, they are joined together by a sort of cross-bar, about half-way
in their length; while, to keep them steady, they are made to rest on
large flat feet. The circular hoop which they support is of some
width, and is ornamented along its entire course with a zig-zag. From
the hoop depend, half-way in the spaces between the legs, three rings,
from each of which there hangs a curious pendant.

Besides copper and bronze, the Phœnicians seem to have worked in lead
and iron, but only to a small extent. Iron ore might have been
obtained in some parts of their own country, but appears to have been
principally derived from abroad, especially from Spain.[81] It was
worked up chiefly, so far as we know, into arms offensive and
defensive. The sword of Alexander, which he received as a gift from
the king of Citium,[82] was doubtless in this metal, which is the
material of a sword found at Amathus, and of numerous arrowheads.[83]
We are also told that Cyprus furnished the iron breast-plates worn by
Demetrius Poliorcetes;[84] and in pre-Homeric times it was a
Phœnician--Cinyras--who gave to Agamemnon his breast-plate of steel,
gold, and tin.[85] That more remains of iron arms and implements have
not been found on Phœnician sites is probably owing to the rapid
oxydisation of the metal, which consequently decays and disappears.
The Hiram who was sent to assist Solomon in building and furnishing
the Temple of Jerusalem was, we must remember, "skilful to work," not
only "in gold, and silver, and bronze," but also "in iron."[86]

Lead was largely furnished to the Phœnicians by the Scilly
Islands,[87] and by Spain.[88] It has not been found in any great
quantity on Phœnician sites, but still appears occasionally. Sometimes
it is a solder uniting stone with bronze;[89] sometimes it exists in
thin sheets, which may have been worn as ornaments.[90] In Phœnicia
Proper it has been chiefly met with in the shape of coffins,[91] which
are apparently of a somewhat late date. They are formed of several
sheets placed one over the other and then soldered together. There is
generally on the lid and sides of the coffin an external ornamentation
in a low relief, wherein the myth of Psyché is said commonly to play a
part; but the execution is mediocre, and the designs themselves have
little merit.



CHAPTER IX

SHIPS, NAVIGATION, AND COMMERCE

  Earliest navigation by means of rafts and canoes--Model of a very
  primitive boat--Phœnician vessel of the time of Sargon--Phœnician
  biremes in the time of Sennacherib--Phœnician pleasure vessels and
  merchant ships--Superiority of the Phœnician war-galleys--
  Excellence of the arrangements--Patæci--Early navigation cautious
  --Increasing boldness--Furthest ventures--Extent of the Phœnician
  land commerce--Witness of Ezekiel--Wares imported--Caravans--
  Description of the land trade--Sea trade of Phœnicia--1. With her
  own colonies--2. With foreigners--Mediterranean and Black Sea
  trade--North Atlantic trade--Trade with the West Coast of Africa
  and the Canaries--Trade in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.

The first attempts of the Phœnicians to navigate the sea which washed
their coast were probably as clumsy and rude as those of other
primitive nations. They are said to have voyaged from island to
island, in their original abodes within the Persian Gulf, by means of
rafts.[1] When they reached the shores of the Mediterranean, it can
scarcely have been long ere they constructed boats for fishing and
coasting purposes, though no doubt such boats were of a very rude
construction. Probably, like other races, they began with canoes,
roughly hewn out of the trunk of a tree. The torrents which descended
from Lebanon would from time to time bring down the stems of fallen
trees in their flood-time; and these, floating on the Mediterranean
waters, would suggest the idea of navigation. They would, at first, be
hollowed out with hatchets and adzes, or else with fire; and, later
on, the canoes thus produced would form the models for the earliest
efforts in shipbuilding. The great length, however, would soon be
found unnecessary, and the canoe would give place to the boat, in the
ordinary acceptation of the term. There are models of boats among the
Phœnician remains which have a very archaic character,[2] and may give
us some idea of the vessels in which the Phœnicians of the remoter
times braved the perils of the deep. They have a keel, not ill shaped,
a rounded hull, bulwarks, a beak, and a high seat for the steersman.
The oars, apparently, must have been passed through interstices in the
bulwark.

From this rude shape the transition was not very difficult to the bark
represented in the sculptures of Sargon,[3] which is probably a
Phœnician one. Here four rowers, standing to their oars, impel a
vessel having for prow the head of a horse and for stern the tail of a
fish, both of them rising high above the water. The oars are curved,
like golf or hockey-sticks, and are worked from the gunwale of the
bark, though there is no indication of rowlocks. The vessel is without
a rudder; but it has a mast, supported by two ropes which are fastened
to the head and stern. The mast has neither sail nor yard attached to
it, but is crowned by what is called a "crow's nest"--a bell-shaped
receptacle, from which a slinger or archer might discharge missiles
against an enemy.[4]

A vessel of considerably greater size than this, but of the same class
--impelled, that is, by one bank of oars only--is indicated by certain
coins, which have been regarded by some critics as Phœnician, by
others as belonging to Cilicia.[5] These have a low bow, but an
elevated stern; the prow exhibits a beak, while the stern shows signs
of a steering apparatus; the number of the oars on each side is
fifteen or twenty. The Greeks called these vessels triaconters or
penteconters. They are represented without any mast on the coins, and
thus seem to have been merely row-boats of a superior character.

About the time of Sennacherib (B.C. 700), or a little earlier, some
great advances seem to have been made by the Phœnician shipbuilders.
In the first place, they introduced the practice of placing the rowers
on two different levels, one above the other; and thus, for a vessel
of the same length, doubling the number of the rowers. Ships of this
kind, which the Greeks called "biremes," are represented in
Sennacherib's sculptures as employed by the inhabitants of a Phœnician
city, who fly in them at the moment when their town is captured, and
so escape their enemy.[6] The ships are of two kinds. Both kinds have
a double tier of rowers, and both are guided by two steering oars
thrust out from the stern; but while the one is still without mast or
sail, and is rounded off in exactly the same way both at stem and
stern, the other has a mast, placed about midship, a yard hung across
it, and a sail close reefed to the yard, while the bow is armed with a
long projecting beak, like a ploughshare, which must have been capable
of doing terrible damage to a hostile vessel. The rowers, in both
classes of ships, are represented as only eight or ten upon a side;
but this may have arisen from artistic necessity, since a greater
number of figures could not have been introduced without confusion. It
is thought that in the beaked vessel we have a representation of the
Phœnician war-galley; in the vessel without a beak, one of the
Phœnician transport.[7]

A painting on a vase found in Cyprus exhibits what would seem to have
been a pleasure-vessel.[8] It is unbeaked, and without any sign of
oars, except two paddles for steering with. About midship is a short
mast, crossed by a long spar or yard, which carries a sail, closely
reefed along its entire length. The yard and sail are managed by means
of four ropes, which are, however, somewhat conventionally depicted.
Both the head and stern of the vessel rise to a considerable height
above the water, and the stern is curved, very much as in the war-
galleys. It perhaps terminated in the head of a bird.

According to the Greek writers, Phœnician vessels were mainly of two
kinds, merchant ships and war-vessels.[9] The merchant ships were of a
broad, round make, what our sailors would call "tubs," resembling
probably the Dutch fishing-boats of a century ago. They were impelled
both by oars and sails, but depended mainly on the latter. Each of
them had a single mast of moderate height, to which a single sail was
attached;[10] this was what in modern times is called a "square sail,"
a form which is only well suited for sailing with when the wind is
directly astern. It was apparently attached to the yard, and had to be
hoisted together with the yard, along which it could be closely
reefed, or from which it could be loosely shaken out. It was managed,
no doubt, by ropes attached to the two lower corners, which must have
been held in the hands of sailors, as it would have been most
dangerous to belay them. As long as the wind served, the merchant
captain used his sail; when it died away, or became adverse, he
dropped yard and sail on to his deck, and made use of his oars.

Merchant ships had, commonly, small boats attached to them, which
afforded a chance of safety if the ship foundered, and were useful
when cargoes had to be landed on a shelving shore.[11] We have no
means of knowing whether these boats were hoisted up on deck until
they were wanted, or attached to the ships by ropes and towed after
them; but the latter arrangement is the more probable.

The war-galleys of the Phœnicians in the early times were probably of
the class which the Greeks called triaconters or penteconters, and
which are represented upon the coins. They were long open rowboats, in
which the rowers sat, all of them, upon a level, the number of rowers
on either side being generally either fifteen or twenty-five. Each
galley was armed at its head with a sharp metal spike, or beak, which
was its chief weapon of offence, vessels of this class seeking
commonly to run down their enemy. After a time these vessels were
superseded by biremes, which were decked, had masts and sails, and
were impelled by rowers sitting at two different elevations, as
already explained. Biremes were ere long superseded by triremes, or
vessels with three banks of oars, which are said to have been invented
at Corinth,[12] but which came into use among the Phœnicians before
the end of the sixth century B.C.[13] In the third century B.C. the
Carthaginians employed in war quadriremes, and even quinqueremes; but
there is no evidence of the employment of either class of vessel by
the Phœnicians of Phœnicia Proper.

The superiority of the Phœnician ships to others is generally allowed,
and was clearly shown when Xerxes collected his fleet of twelve
hundred and seven triremes against Greece. The fleet included
contingents from Phœnicia, Cyprus, Egypt, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycia,
Caria, Ionia, Æolis, and the Greek settlements about the
Propontis.[14] When it reached the Hellespont, the great king, anxious
to test the quality of his ships and sailors, made proclamation for a
grand sailing match, in which all who liked might contend. Each
contingent probably--at any rate, all that prided themselves on their
nautical skill--selected its best vessel, and entered it for the
coming race; the king himself, and his grandees and officers, and all
the army, stood or sat along the shore to see: the race took place,
and was won by the Phœnicians of Sidon.[15] Having thus tested the
nautical skill of the various nations under his sway, the great king,
when he ventured his person upon the dangerous element, was careful to
embark in a Sidonian galley.[16] 

A remarkable testimony to the excellence of the Phœnician ships with
respect to internal arrangements is borne by Xenophon, who puts the
following words into the mouth of Ischomachus, a Greek:[17] "I think
that the best and most perfect arrangement of things that I ever saw
was when I went to look at the great Phœnician sailing-vessel; for I
saw the largest amount of naval tackling separately disposed in the
smallest stowage possible. For a ship, as you well know, is brought to
anchor, and again got under way, by a vast number of wooden implements
and of ropes and sails the sea by means of a quantity of rigging, and
is armed with a number of contrivances against hostile vessels, and
carries about with it a large supply of weapons for the crew, and,
besides, has all the utensils that a man keeps in his dwelling-house,
for each of the messes. In addition, it is laden with a quantity of
merchandise which the owner carries with him for his own profit. Now
all the things which I have mentioned lay in a space not much bigger
than a room which would conveniently hold ten beds. And I remarked
that they severally lay in a way that they did not obstruct one
another, and did not require anyone to search for them; and yet they
were neither placed at random, nor entangled one with another, so as
to consume time when they were suddenly wanted for use. Also, I found
the captain's assistant, who is called 'the look-out man,' so well
acquainted with the position of all the articles, and with the number
of them, that even when at a distance he could tell where everything
lay, and how many there were of each sort, just as anyone who has
learnt to read can tell the number of letters in the name of Socrates
and the proper place for each of them. Moreover, I saw this man, in
his leisure moments, examining and testing everything that a vessel
needs when at sea; so, as I was surprised, I asked him what he was
about, whereupon he replied--'Stranger, I am looking to see, in case
anything should happen, how everything is arranged in the ship, and
whether anything is wanting, or is inconveniently situated; for when a
storm arises at sea, it is not possible either to look for what is
wanting, or to put to right what is arranged awkwardly.'"

Phœnician ships seem to have been placed under the protection of the
Cabeiri, and to have had images of them at their stem or stern or
both.[18] These images were not exactly "figure-heads," as they are
sometimes called. They were small, apparently, and inconspicuous,
being little dwarf figures, regarded as amulets that would preserve
the vessel in safety. We do not see them on any representations of
Phœnician ships, and it is possible that they may have been no larger
than the bronze or glazed earthenware images of Phthah that are so
common in Egypt. The Phœnicians called them /pittuchim/,
"sculptures,"[19] whence the Greek {pataikoi} and the French
/fétiche/.

The navigation of the Phœnicians, in early times, was no doubt
cautious and timid. So far from venturing out of sight of land, they
usually hugged the coast, ready at any moment, if the sea or sky
threatened, to change their course and steer directly for the shore.
On a shelving coast they were not at all afraid to run their ships
aground, since, like the Greek vessels, they could be easily pulled up
out of reach of the waves, and again pulled down and launched, when
the storm was over and the sea calm once more. At first they sailed,
we may be sure, only in the daytime, casting anchor at nightfall, or
else dragging their ships up upon the beach, and so awaiting the dawn.
But after a time they grew more bold. The sea became familiar to them,
the positions of coasts and islands relatively one to another better
known, the character of the seasons, the signs of unsettled or settled
weather, the conduct to pursue in an emergency, better apprehended.
They soon began to shape the course of their vessels from headland to
headland, instead of always creeping along the shore, and it was not
perhaps very long before they would venture out of sight of land, if
their knowledge of the weather satisfied them that the wind might be
trusted to continue steady, and if they were well assured of the
direction of the land that they wished to make. They took courage,
moreover, to sail in the night, no less than in the daytime, when the
weather was clear, guiding themselves by the stars, and particularly
by the Polar star,[20] which they discovered to be the star most
nearly marking the true north. A passage of Strabo[21] seems to show
that--in the later times at any rate--they had a method of calculating
the rate of a ship's sailing, though what the method was is wholly
unknown to us. It is probable that they early constructed charts and
maps, which however they would keep secret through jealousy of their
commercial rivals.

The Phœnicians for some centuries confined their navigation within the
limits of the Mediterranean, the Propontis, and the Euxine, land-
locked seas, which are tideless and far less rough than the open
ocean. But before the time of Solomon they had passed the Pillars of
Hercules, and affronted the dangers of the Atlantic.[22] Their frail
and small vessels, scarcely bigger than modern fishing-smacks,
proceeded southwards along the West African coast, as far as the tract
watered by the Gambia and Senegal, while northwards they coasted along
Spain, braved the heavy seas of the Bay of Biscay, and passing Cape
Finisterre, ventured across the mouth of the English Channel to the
Cassiterides. Similarly, from the West African shore, they boldly
steered for the Fortunate Islands (the Canaries), visible from certain
elevated points of the coast, though at 170 miles distance. Whether
they proceeded further, in the south to the Azores, Madeira, and the
Cape de Verde Islands, in the north to the coast of Holland, and
across the German Ocean to the Baltic, we regard as uncertain. It is
possible that from time to time some of the more adventurous of their
traders may have reached thus far; but their regular, settled, and
established navigation did not, we believe, extend beyond the Scilly
Islands and coast of Cornwall to the north-west, and to the south-west
Cape Non and the Canaries.

The commerce of the Phœnicians was carried on, to a large extent, by
land, though principally by sea. It appears from the famous chapter of
Ezekiel[23] which describes the riches and greatness of Tyre in the
sixth century B.C., that almost the whole of Western Asia was
penetrated by the Phœnician caravans, and laid under contribution to
increase the wealth of the Phœnician traders.

  "Thou, son of man, (we read) take up a lamentation for Tyre, and say
    unto her,
  O thou that dwellest at the entry of the sea,
  Which art the merchant of the peoples unto many isles,
  Thus saith the Lord God, Thou, O Tyre, hast said, I am perfect in
    beauty.
  Thy borders are in the heart of the sea;
  Thy builders have perfected thy beauty.
  They have made all thy planks of fir-trees from Senir;
  They have taken cedars from Lebanon to make a mast for thee
  Of the oaks of Bashan have they made thine oars;
  They have made thy benches of ivory,
  Inlaid in box-wood, from the isles of Kittim.
  Of fine linen with broidered work from Egypt was thy sail,
  That it might be to thee for an ensign;
  Blue and purple from the isles of Elishah was thy awning.
  The inhabitants of Zidon and of Arvad were thy rowers;
  Thy wise men, O Tyre, were in thee--they were thy pilots.
  The ancients of Gebal, and their wise men, were thy calkers;
  All the ships of the sea, with their mariners, were in thee,
  That they might occupy thy merchandise.
  Persia, and Lud, and Phut were in thine army, thy men of war;
  They hanged the shield and helmet in thee;
  They set forth thy comeliness.
  The men of Arvad, with thine army, were upon thy walls round about;
  And the Gammadim were in thy towers;
  They hanged their shields upon thy walls round about;
  They have brought to perfection thy beauty.
  Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kinds of
    riches;
  With silver, iron, tin, and lead, they traded for thy wares.
  Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, they were thy traffickers;
  They traded the persons of men, and vessels of brass, for thy
    merchandise.
  They of the house of Togarmah traded for thy wares,
  With horses, and with chargers, and with mules.
  The men of Dedan were thy traffickers; many isles were the mart of
    thy hands;
  They brought thee in exchange horns of ivory, and ebony.
  Syria was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of thy handiworks;
  They traded for thy wares with emeralds, purple, and broidered work,
  And with fine linen, and coral, and rubies.
  Judah, and the land of Israel, they were thy traffickers;
  They traded for thy merchandise wheat of Minnith,
  And Pannag, and honey, and oil, and balm.
  Damascus was thy merchant for the multitude of thy handiworks;
  By reason of the multitude of all kinds of riches;
  With the wine of Helbon, and white wool.
  Dedan and Javan traded with yarn for thy wares;
  Bright iron, and cassia, and calamus were among thy merchandise.
  Dedan was thy trafficker in precious cloths for riding;
  Arabia, and all the princes of Kedar, they were the merchants of thy
    hand,
  In lambs, and rams, and goats, in these were they thy merchants.
  The traffickers of Sheba and Raamah, they were thy traffickers;
  They traded for thy wares with chief of all spices,
  And with all manner of precious stones, and gold.
  Haran, and Canneh, and Eden, the traffickers of Sheba,
  Asshur and Chilmad, were thy traffickers:
  They were thy traffickers in choice wares,
  In wrappings of blue and broidered work, and in chests of rich
    apparel,
  Bound with cords, and made of cedar, among thy merchandise.
  The ships of Tarshish were thy caravans for they merchandise;
  And thou wast replenished, and made very glorious, in the heart of
    the sea.
  Thy rowers have brought thee into great waters;
  The east wind hath broken thee in the heart of the sea.
  Thy reaches, and thy wares, thy merchandise, thy mariners, and thy
    pilots,
  Thy calkers, and the occupiers of thy merchandise,
  With all the men of war, that are in thee,
  Shall fall into the heart of the seas in the day of thy ruin.
  At the sound of thy pilot's cry the suburb's shall shake;
  And all that handle the oar, the mariners, and all the pilots of the
    sea,
  They shall come down from their ships, they shall stand upon the
    land,
  And shall cause their voice to be heard over thee, and shall cry
    bitterly,
  And shall cast up dust upon their heads, and wallow in the ashes;
  And they shall make themselves bald for thee, and gird them with
    sackcloth,
  And they shall weep for thee in bitterness of soul with bitter
    mourning.
  And in their wailing they shall take up a lamentation for thee,
  And lament over thee saying, Who is there like Tyre,
  Like her that is brought to silence in the midst of the sea?
  When thy wares went forth out of the seas, thou filledst many
    peoples;
  Thou didst enrich the kings of the earth with thy merchandise and
    thy riches.
  In the time that thou was broken by the seas in the depths of the
    waters,
  Thy merchandise, and all thy company, did fall in the midst of thee,
  And the inhabitants of the isles are astonished at thee,
  And their kings are sore afraid, they are troubled in their
    countenance,
  The merchants that are among the peoples, hiss at thee;
  Thou art become a terror; and thou shalt never be any more."

Translating this glorious burst of poetry into prose, we find the
following countries mentioned as carrying on an active trade with the
Phœnician metropolis:--Northern Syria, Syria of Damascus, Judah and
the land of Israel, Egypt, Arabia, Babylonia, Assyria, Upper
Mesopotamia,[24] Armenia,[25] Central Asia Minor, Ionia, Cyprus,
Hellas or Greece,[26] and Spain.[27] Northern Syria furnishes the
Phœnician merchants with /butz/, which is translated "fine linen," but
is perhaps rather cotton,[28] the "tree-wool" of Herodotus; it also
supplies embroidery, and certain precious stones, which our
translators have considered to be coral, emeralds, and rubies. Syria
of Damascus gives the "wine of Helbon"--that exquisite liquor which
was the only sort that the Persian kings would condescend to drink[29]
--and "white wool," the dainty fleeces of the sheep and lambs that fed
on the upland pastures of Hermon and Antilibanus. Judah and the land
of Israel supply corn of superior quality, called "corn of Minnith"--
corn, i.e. produced in the rich Ammonite country[30]--together with
/pannag/, an unknown substance, and honey, and balm, and oil. Egypt
sends fine linen, one of her best known products[31]--sometimes, no
doubt, plain, but often embroidered with bright patterns, and employed
as such embroidered fabrics were also in Egypt,[32] for the sails of
pleasure-boats. Arabia provides her spices, cassia, and calamus (or
aromatic reed), and, beyond all doubt, frankincense,[33] and perhaps
cinnamon and ladanum.[34] She also supplies wool and goat's hair, and
cloths for chariots, and gold, and wrought iron, and precious stones,
and ivory, and ebony, of which the last two cannot have been
productions of her own, but must have been imported from India or
Abyssinia.[35] Babylonia and Assyria furnish "wrappings of blue,
embroidered work, and chests of rich apparel."[36] Upper Mesopotamia
partakes in this traffic.[37] Armenia gives horses and mules. Central
Asia Minor (Tubal and Meshech) supplies slaves and vessels of brass,
and the Greeks of Ionia do the like. Cyprus furnishes ivory, which she
must first have imported from abroad.[38] Greece Proper sends her
shell-fish, to enable the Phœnician cities to increase their
manufacture of the purple dye.[39] Finally, Spain yields silver, iron,
tin, and lead--the most useful of the metals--all of which she is
known to have produced in abundance.[40]

With the exception of Egypt, Ionia, Cyprus, Hellas, and Spain, the
Phœnician intercourse with these places must have been carried on
wholly by land. Even with Egypt, wherewith the communication by sea
was so facile, there seems to have been also from a very early date a
land commerce. The land commerce was in every case carried on by
caravans. Western Asia has never yet been in so peaceful and orderly
condition as to dispense prudent traders from the necessity of joining
together in large bodies, well provisioned and well armed, when they
are about to move valuable goods any considerable distance. There have
always been robber-tribes in the mountain tracts, and thievish Arabs
upon the plains, ready to pounce on the insufficiently protected
traveller, and to despoil him of all his belongings. Hence the
necessity of the caravan traffic. As early as the time of Joseph--
probably about B.C. 1600--we find a /company/ of the Midianites on
their way from Gilead, with their camels bearing spicery, and balm,
and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt.[41] Elsewhere we hear of
the "travelling /companies/ of the Dedanim,"[42] of the men of Sheba
bringing their gold and frankincense;[43] of a multitude of camels
coming up to Palestine with wood from Kedar and Nebaioth.[44] Heeren
is entirely justified in his conclusion that the land trade of the
Phœnicians was conducted by "large companies or caravans, since it
could only have been carried on in this way."[45]

The nearest neighbours of the Phœnicians on the land side were the
Jews and Israelites, the Syrians of Damascus, and the people of
Northern Syria, or the Orontes valley and the tract east of it. From
the Jews and Israelites the Phœnicians seem to have derived at all
times almost the whole of the grain which they were forced to import
for their sustenance. In the time of David and Solomon it was chiefly
for wheat and barley that they exchanged the commodities which they
exported,[46] in that of Ezekiel it was primarily for "wheat of
Minnith;"[47] and a similar trade is noted on the return of the Jews
from the captivity,[48] and in the first century of our era.[49] But
besides grain they also imported from Palestine at some periods wine,
oil, honey, balm, and oak timber.[50] Western Palestine was
notoriously a land not only of corn, but also of wine, of olive oil,
and of honey, and could readily impart of its superfluity to its
neighbour in time of need. The oaks of Bashan are very abundant, and
seem to have been preferred by the Phœnicians to their own oaks as the
material of oars.[51] Balm, or basalm, was a product of the land of
Gilead,[52] and also of the lower Jordan valley, where it was of
superior quality.[53]

From the Damascene Syrians we are told that Phœnicia imported "wine of
Helbon" and "white wool."[54] The "wine of Helbon" is reasonably
identified with that {oinos Khalubonios} which is said to have been
the favourite beverage of the Persian kings.[55] It was perhaps grown
in the neighbourhood of Aleppo.[56] The "white wool" may have been
furnished by the sheep that cropped the slopes of the Antilibanus, or
by those fed on the fine grass which clothes most of the plain at its
base. The fleece of these last is, according to Heeren,[57] "the
finest known, being improved by the heat of the climate, the continual
exposure to the open air, and the care commonly bestowed upon the
flocks." From the Syrian wool, mixed perhaps with some other material,
seems to have been woven the fabric known, from the city where it was
commonly made,[58] as "damask."

According to the existing text of Ezekiel,[59] Syria Proper "occupied
in the fairs" of Phœnicia with cotton, with embroidered robes, with
purple, and with precious stones. The valley of the Orontes is
suitable for the cultivation of cotton; and embroidered robes would
naturally be produced in the seat of an old civilisation, which Syria
certainly was. Purple seems somewhat out of place in the enumeration;
but the Syrians may have gathered the /murex/ on their seaboard
between Mt. Casius and the Gulf of Issus, and have sold what they
collected in the Phœnician market. The precious stones which Ezekiel
assigns to them are difficult of identification, but may have been
furnished by Casius, Bargylus, or Amanus. These mountains, or at any
rate Casius and Amanus, are of igneous origin, and, if carefully
explored, would certainly yield gems to the investigator. At the same
time it must be acknowledged that Syria had not, in antiquity, the
name of a gem-producing country; and, so far, the reading of "Edom"
for "Aram," which is preferred by many,[60] may seem to be the more
probable.

The commerce of the Phœnicians with Egypt was ancient, and very
extensive. "The wares of Egypt" are mentioned by Herodotus as a
portion of the merchandise which they brought to Greece before the
time of the Trojan War.[61] The Tyrians had a quarter in the city of
Memphis assigned to them,[62] probably from an early date. According
to Ezekiel, the principal commodity which Egypt furnished to Phœnicia
was "fine linen"[63]--especially the linen sails embroidered with gay
patterns, which the Egyptian nobles affected for their pleasure-boats.
They probably also imported from Egypt natron for their glass-works,
papyrus for their documents, earthenware of various kinds for
exportation, scarabs and other seals, statuettes and figures of gods,
amulets, and in the later times sarcophagi.[64] Their exports to Egypt
consisted of wine on a large scale,[65] tin almost certainly, and
probably their peculiar purple fabrics, and other manufactured
articles.

The Phœnician trade with Arabia was of especial importance, since not
only did the great peninsula itself produce many of the most valuable
articles of commerce, but it was also mainly, if not solely, through
Arabia that the Indian market was thrown open to the Phœnician
traders, and the precious commodities obtained for which Hindustan has
always been famous. Arabia is /par excellence/ the land of spices, and
was the main source from which the ancient world in general, and
Phœnicia in particular, obtained frankincense, cinnamon, cassia,
myrrh, calamus or sweet-cane, and ladanum.[66] It has been doubted
whether these commodities were, all of them, the actual produce of the
country in ancient times, and Herodotus has been in some degree
discredited, but perhaps without sufficient reason. He is supported to
a considerable extent by Theophrastus, the disciple of Aristotle, who
says:[67] "Frankincense, myrrh, and cassia grow in the Arabian
districts of Saba and Hadramaut; frankincense and myrrh on the sides
or at the foot of mountains, and in the neighbouring islands. The
trees which produce them grow sometimes wild, though occasionally they
are cultivated; and the frankincense-tree grows sometimes taller than
the tree producing the myrrh." Modern authorities declare the
frankincense-tree (/Boswellia thurifera/) to be still a native of
Hadramaut;[68] and there is no doubt that the myrrh-tree
(/Balsamodendron myrrha/) also grows there. If cinnamon and cassia, as
the terms are now understood, do not at present grow in Arabia, or
nearer to Phœnicia than Hindustan, it may be that they have died out
in the former country, or our modern use of the terms may differ from
the ancient one. On the other hand, it is no doubt possible that the
Phœnicians imagined all the spices which they obtained from Arabia to
be the indigenous growth of the country, when in fact some of them
were importations.

Next to her spices, Arabia was famous for the production of a superior
quality of wool. The Phœnicians imported this wool largely. The flocks
of Kedar are especially noted,[69] and are said to have included both
sheep and goats.[70] It was perhaps a native woollen manufacture, in
which Dedan traded with Tyre, and which Ezekiel notices as a trade in
"cloths for chariots."[71] Goat's hair was largely employed in the
production of coverings for tents.[72] Arabia also furnished Phœnicia
with gold, with precious stones, with ivory, ebony, and wrought
iron.[73] The wrought iron was probably from Yemen, which was
celebrated for its manufacture of sword blades. The gold may have been
native, for there is much reason to believe that anciently the Arabian
mountain ranges yielded gold as freely as the Ethiopian,[74] with
which they form one system; or it may have been imported from
Hindustan, with which Arabia had certainly, in ancient times, constant
communication. Ivory and ebony must, beyond a doubt, have been Arabian
importations. There are two countries from which they may have been
derived, India and Abyssinia. It is likely that the commercial Arabs
of the south-east coast had dealings with both.[75]

Of Phœnician imports into Arabia we have no account; but we may
conjecture that they consisted principally of manufactured goods,
cotton and linen fabrics, pottery, implements and utensils in metal,
beads, and other ornaments for the person, and the like. The nomadic
Arabs, leading a simple life, required but little beyond what their
own country produced; there was, however, a town population[76] in the
more southern parts of the peninsula, to which the elegancies and
luxuries of life, commonly exported by Phœnicia, would have been
welcome.

The Phœnician trade with Babylonia and Assyria was carried on probably
by caravans, which traversed the Syrian desert by way of Tadmor or
Palmyra, and struck the Euphrates about Circesium. Here the route
divided, passing to Babylon southwards along the course of the great
river, and to Nineveh eastwards by way of the Khabour and the Sinjar
mountain-range. Both countries seem to have supplied the Phœnicians
with fabrics of extraordinary value, rich in a peculiar embroidery,
and deemed so precious that they were packed in chests of cedar-wood,
which the Phœnician merchants must have brought with them from
Lebanon.[77] The wares furnished by Assyria were in some cases
exported to Greece,[78] while no doubt in others they were intended
for home consumption. They included cylinders in rock crystal, jasper,
hematite, steatite, and other materials, which may sometimes have
found purchasers in Phœnicia Proper, but appear to have been specially
affected by the Phœnician colonists in Cyprus.[79] On her part
Phœnicia must have imported into Assyria and Babylonia the tin which
was a necessary element in their bronze; and they seem also to have
found a market in Assyria for their own most valuable and artistic
bronzes, the exquisite embossed pateræ which are among the most
precious of the treasures brought by Sir Austen Layard from
Nineveh.[80]

The nature of the Phœnician trade with Upper Mesopotamia is unknown to
us; and it is not impossible that their merchants visited Haran,[81]
rather because it lay on the route which they had to follow in order
to reach Armenia than because it possessed in itself any special
attraction for them. Gall-nuts and manna are almost the only products
for which the region is celebrated; and of these Phœnicia herself
produced the one, while she probably did not need the other. But the
natural route to Armenia was by way of the Cœlesyrian valley, Aleppo
and Carchemish, to Haran, and thence by Amida or Diarbekr to Van,
which was the capital of Armenia in the early times.

Armenia supplied the Phœnicians with "horses of common and of noble
breeds,"[82] and also with mules.[83] Strabo says that it was a
country exceedingly well adapted for the breeding of the horse,[84]
and even notes the two qualities of the animal that it produced, one
of which he calls "Nisæan," though the true "Nisæan plain" was in
Media. So large was the number of colts bred each year, and so highly
were they valued, that, under the Persian monarchy the Great King
exacted from the province, as a regular item of its tribute, no fewer
than twenty thousand of them annually.[85] Armenian mules seem not to
be mentioned by any writer besides Ezekiel; but mules were esteemed
throughout the East in antiquity,[86] and no country would have been
more likely to breed them than the mountain tract of Armenia, the
Switzerland of Western Asia, where such surefooted animals would be
especially needed.

Armenia adjoined the country of the Moschi and Tibareni--the Meshech
and Tubal of the Bible. These tribes, between the ninth and the
seventh centuries B.C., inhabited the central regions of Asia Minor
and the country known later as Cappadocia. They traded with Tyre in
the "persons of men" and in "vessels of brass" or copper.[87] Copper
is found abundantly in the mountain ranges of these parts, and
Xenophon remarks on the prevalence of metal vessels in the portion of
the region which he passed through--the country of the
Carduchians.[88] The traffic in slaves was one in which the Phœnicians
engaged from very early times. They were not above kidnapping men,
women, and children in one country and selling them into another;[89]
besides which they seem to have frequented regularly the principal
slave marts of the time. They bought such Jews as were taken captive
and sold into slavery by the neighbouring nations,[90] and they looked
to the Moschi and Tibareni for a constant supply of the commodity from
the Black Sea region.[91] The Caucasian tribes have always been in the
habit of furnishing slave-girls to the harems of the East, and the
Thracians, who were not confined to Europe, but occupied a great part
of Asia Minor, regularly trafficked in their children.[92]

Such was the extent of the Phœnician land trade, as indicated by the
prophet Ezekiel, and such were, so far as is at present known, the
commodities interchanged in the course of it. It is quite possible--
nay, probable--that the trade extended much further, and certain that
it must have included many other articles of commerce besides those
which we have mentioned. The sources of our information on the subject
are so few and scanty, and the notices from which we derive our
knowledge for the most part so casual, that we may be sure what is
preserved is but a most imperfect record of what was--fragments of
wreck recovered from the sea of oblivion. It may have been a Phœnician
caravan route which Herodotus describes as traversed on one occasion
by the Nasamonians,[93] which began in North Africa and terminated
with the Niger and the city of Timbuctoo; and another, at which he
hints as lying between the coast of the Lotus-eaters and Fezzan.[94]
Phœnician traders may have accompanied and stimulated the slave hunts
of the Garamantians,[95] as Arab traders do those of the Central
African nations at the present day. Again, it is quite possible that
the Phœnicians of Memphis designed and organised the caravans which,
proceeding from Egyptian Thebes, traversed Africa from east to west
along the line of the "Salt Hills," by way of Ammon, Augila, Fezzan,
and the Tuarik country to Mount Atlas.[96] We can scarcely imagine the
Egyptians showing so much enterprise. But these lines of traffic can
be ascribed to the Phœnicians only by conjecture, history being silent
on the subject.

The sea trade of the Phœnicians was still more extensive than their
land traffic. It is divisible into two branches, their trade with
their own colonists, and that with the natives of the various
countries to which they penetrated in their voyages. The colonies sent
out from Phœnicia were, except in the single instance of Carthage,
trading settlements, planted where some commodity or commodities
desired by the mother-country abounded, and were intended to secure to
the mother-country the monopoly of such commodity or commodities. For
instance, Cyprus was colonised for the sake of its copper mines and
its timber; Cilicia and Lycia for their timber only; Thasos for its
gold mines; Salamis and Cythera for the purple trade; Sardinia and
Spain for their numerous metals; North Africa for its fertility and
for the trade with the interior. Phœnicia expected to derive,
primarily, from each colony the commodity or commodities which had
caused the selection of the site. In return she supplied the colonists
with her own manufactured articles; with fabrics in linen, wool,
cotton, and perhaps to some extent in silk; with every variety of
pottery, from dishes and jugs of the plainest and most simple kind to
the most costly and elaborate vases and amphoræ; with metal utensils
and arms, with gold and silver ornaments, with embossed shields and
pateræ, with faïnce and glass, and also with any foreign products or
manufactures that they desired and that the countries within the range
of her influence could furnish. Phœnicia must have imported into
Cyprus, to suit a peculiar Cyprian taste, the Egyptian statuettes,
scarabs, and rings,[97] and the Assyrian and Babylonian cylinders,
which have been found there. The tin which she brought from the
Cassiterides she distributed generally, for she did not discourage her
colonists from manufacturing for themselves to some extent. There was
probably no colony which did not make its own bronze vessels of the
commoner sort and its own coarser pottery.

In her trade with the nations who peopled the coasts of the
Mediterranean, the Propontis, and the Black Sea, Phœnicia aimed
primarily at disposing to advantage of her own commodities,
secondarily at making a profit in commodities which she had obtained
from other countries, and thirdly on obtaining commodities which she
might dispose of to advantage elsewhere. Where the nations were
uncivilised, or in a low condition of civilisation, she looked to
making a large profit by furnishing them at a cheap rate with all the
simplest conveniences of life, with their pottery, their implements
and utensils, their clothes, their arms, the ornaments of their
persons and of their houses. Underselling the native producers, she
soon obtained a monopoly of this kind of trade, drove the native
products out of the market, and imposed her own instead, much as the
manufacturers of Manchester, Birmingham, and the Potteries impose
their calicoes, their cutlery, and their earthenware on the savages of
Africa and Polynesia. Where culture was more advanced, as in Greece
and parts of Italy,[98] she looked to introduce, and no doubt
succeeded in introducing, the best of her own productions, fabrics of
crimson, violet, and purple, painted vases, embossed pateræ,
necklaces, bracelets, rings--"cunning work" of all manner of kinds[99]
--mirrors, glass vessels, and smelling-bottles. At the same time she
also disposed at a profit of many of the wares that she had imported
from foreign countries, which were advanced in certain branches of
art, as Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, possibly India. The muslins and
ivory of Hindustan, the shawls of Kashmir, the carpets of Babylon, the
spices of Araby the Blest, the pearls of the Persian Gulf, the faïence
and the papyrus of Egypt, would be readily taken by the more civilised
of the Western nations, who would be prepared to pay a high price for
them. They would pay for them partly, no doubt, in silver and gold,
but to some extent also in their own manufactured commodities, Attica
in her ceramic products, Corinth in her "brass," Etruria in her
candelabra and engraved mirrors,[100] Argos in her highly elaborated
ornaments.[101] Or, in some cases, they might make return out of the
store wherewith nature had provided them, Eubœa rendering her copper,
the Peloponnese her "purple," Crete her timber, the Cyrenaica its
silphium.

Outside the Pillars of Hercules the Phœnicians had only savage nations
to deal with, and with these they seem to have traded mainly for the
purpose of obtaining certain natural products, either peculiarly
valuable or scarcely procurable elsewhere. Their trade with the Scilly
Islands and the coast of Cornwall was especially for the procuring of
tin. Of all the metals, tin is found in the fewest places, and though
Spain seems to have yielded some anciently,[102] yet it can only have
been in small quantities, while there was an enormous demand for tin
in all parts of the old world, since bronze was the material almost
universally employed for arms, tools, implements, and utensils of all
kinds, while tin is the most important, though not the largest,
element in bronze. From the time that the Phœnicians discovered the
Scilly Islands--the "Tin Islands" (Cassiterides), as they called them
--it is probable that the tin of the civilised world was almost wholly
derived from this quarter. Eastern Asia, no doubt, had always its own
mines, and may have exported tin to some extent, in the remoter times,
supplying perhaps the needs of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. But, after
the rich stores of the metal which our own islands possess were laid
open, and the Phœnicians with their extensive commercial dealings,
both in the West and in the East, became interested in diffusing it,
British tin probably drove all other out of use, and obtained the
monopoly of the markets wherever Phœnician influence prevailed. Hence
the trade with the Cassiterides was constant, and so highly prized
that a Phœnician captain, finding his ship followed by a Roman vessel,
preferred running it upon the rocks to letting a rival nation learn
the secret of how the tin-producing coast might be approached in
safety.[103] With the tin it was usual for the merchants to combine a
certain amount of lead and a certain quantity of skins or hides; while
they gave in exchange pottery, salt, and articles in bronze, such as
arms, implements, and utensils for cooking and for the table.[104]

If the Phœnicians visited, as some maintain that they did,[105] the
coasts of the Baltic, it must have been for the purpose of obtaining
amber. Amber is thrown up largely by the waters of that land-locked
sea, and at present especially abounds on the shore in the vicinity of
Dantzic. It is very scarce elsewhere. The Phœnicians seem to have made
use of amber in their necklaces from a very early date;[106] and,
though they might no doubt have obtained it by land-carriage across
Europe to the head of the Adriatic, yet their enterprise and their
commercial spirit were such as would not improbably have led them to
seek to open a direct communication with the amber-producing region,
so soon as they knew where it was situated. The dangers of the German
Ocean are certainly not greater than those of the Atlantic; and if the
Phœnicians had sufficient skill in navigation to reach Britain and the
Fortunate Islands, they could have found no very serious difficulty in
penetrating to the Baltic. On the other hand, there is no direct
evidence of their having penetrated so far, and perhaps the Adriatic
trade may have supplied them with as much amber as they needed.

The trade of the Phœnicians with the west coast of Africa had for its
principal objects the procuring of ivory, of elephant, lion, leopard,
and deer-skins, and probably of gold. Scylax relates that there was an
established trade in his day (about B.C. 350) between Phœnicia and an
island which he calls Cerne, probably Arguin, off the West African
coast. "The merchants," he says,[107] "who are Phœnicians, when they
have arrived at Cerne, anchor their vessels there, and after having
pitched their tents upon the shore, proceed to unload their cargo, and
to convey it in smaller boats to the mainland. The dealers with whom
they trade are Ethiopians; and these dealers sell to the Phœnicians
skins of deer, lions, panthers, and domestic animals--elephants' skins
also, and their teeth. The Ethiopians wear embroidered garments, and
use ivory cups as drinking vessels; their women adorn themselves with
ivory bracelets; and their horses also are adorned with ivory. The
Phœnicians convey to them ointment, elaborate vessels from Egypt,
castrated swine(?), and Attic pottery and cups. These last they
commonly purchase [in Athens] at the Feast of Cups. These Ethiopians
are eaters of flesh and drinkers of milk; they make also much wine
from the vine; and the Phœnicians, too, supply some wine to them. They
have a considerable city, to which the Phœnicians sail up." The river
on which the city stood was probably the Senegal.

It will be observed that Scylax says nothing in this passage of any
traffic for gold. We can scarcely suppose, however, that the
Phœnicians, if they penetrated so far south as this, could remain
ignorant of the fact that West Africa was a gold-producing country,
much less that, being aware of the fact, they would fail to utilise
it. Probably they were the first to establish that "dumb commerce"
which was afterwards carried on with so much advantage to themselves
by the Carthaginians, and whereof Herodotus gives so graphic an
account. "There is a country," he says,[108] "in Libya, and a nation,
beyond the Pillars of Hercules, which the Carthaginians are wont to
visit, where they no sooner arrive than forthwith they unlade their
wares, and having disposed them after an orderly fashion along the
beach, there leave them, and returning aboard their ships, raise a
great smoke. The natives, when they see the sample, come down to the
shore, and laying out to view so much gold as they think the wares are
worth, withdraw to a distance. The Carthaginians upon this come ashore
again and look. If they think the gold to be enough, they take it and
go their way; but if it does not seem to them sufficient, they go
aboard ship once more, and wait patiently. Then the others approach
and add to their gold, till the Carthaginians are satisfied. Neither
party deals unfairly by the other: for they themselves never touch the
gold till it comes up to the worth of their goods, nor do the natives
ever carry off the goods until the gold has been taken away."

The nature of the Phœnician trade with the Canaries, or Fortunate
Islands, is not stated by any ancient author, and can only be
conjectured. It would scarcely have been worth the Phœnicians' while
to convey timber to Syria from such a distance, or we might imagine
the virgin forests of the islands attracting them.[109] The large
breed of dogs from which the Canaries derived their later name[110]
may perhaps have constituted an article of export even in Phœnician
times, as we know they did later, when we hear of their being conveyed
to King Juba;[111] but there is an entire lack of evidence on the
subject. Perhaps the Phœnicians frequented the islands less for the
sake of commerce than for that of watering and refitting the ships
engaged in the African trade, since the natives were less formidable
than those who inhabited the mainland.[112]

There was one further direction in which the Phœnicians pushed their
maritime trade, not perhaps continuously, but at intervals, when their
political relations were such as to give them access to the sea which
washed Asia on the south and on the southeast. The nearest points at
which they could embark for the purpose of exploring or utilising the
great tract of ocean in this quarter were the inner recesses of the
two deep gulfs known as the Persian and the Arabian. It has been
thought by some[113] that there were times in their history when the
Phœnicians had the free use of both these gulfs, and could make the
starting-point of their eastern explorations and trading voyages
either a port on one of the two arms into which the Red Sea divides
towards the north, or a harbour on the Persian Gulf near its north-
western extremity. But the latter supposition rests upon grounds which
are exceedingly unsafe and uncertain. That the Phœnicians migrated at
some remote period from the shores of the Persian Gulf to the
Mediterranean may be allowed to be highly probable; but that, after
quitting their primitive abodes and moving off nearly a thousand miles
to the westward, they still maintained a connection with their early
settlements and made them centres for a trade with the Far East, is as
improbable a hypothesis as any that has ever received the sanction of
men of learning and repute. The Babylonians, through whose country the
connection must have been kept up, were themselves traders, and would
naturally keep the Arabian and Indian traffic in their own hands; nor
can we imagine them as brooking the establishment of a rival upon
their shores. The Arabians were more friendly; but they, too, would
have disliked to share their carrying trade with a foreign nation. And
the evidence entirely fails to show that the Phœnicians, from the time
of their removal to the Mediterranean, ever launched a vessel in the
Persian Gulf, or had any connection with the nations inhabiting its
shores, beyond that maintained by the caravans which trafficked by
land between the Phœnician cities and the men of Dedan and
Babylon.[114]

It was otherwise with the more western gulf. There, certainly, from
time to time, the Phœnicians launched their fleets, and carried on a
commerce which was scarcely less lucrative because they had to allow
the nations whose ports they used a participation in its profits. It
is not impossible that, occasionally, the Egyptians allowed them to
build ships in some one or more of their Red Sea ports, and to make
such port or ports the head-quarters of a trade which may have
proceeded beyond the Straits of Babelmandeb and possibly have reached
Zanzibar and Ceylon. At any rate, we know that, in the time of
Solomon, two harbours upon the Red Sea were open to them--viz. Eloth
and Ezion-Geber--both places situated in the inner recess of the
Elanitic Gulf, or Gulf of Akaba, the more eastern of the two arms into
which the Red Sea divides. David's conquest of Edom had put these
ports into the possession of the Israelites, and the friendship
between Hiram and Solomon had given the Phœnicians free access to
them. It was the ambition of Solomon to make the Israelites a nautical
people, and to participate in the advantages which he perceived to
have accrued to Phœnicia from her commercial enterprise. Besides
sharing with the Phœnicians in the trade of the Mediterranean,[115] he
constructed with their help a fleet at Ezion-Geber upon the Red
Sea,[116] and the two allies conjointly made voyages to the region, or
country, called Ophir, for the purpose of procuring precious stones,
gold, and almug-wood.[117] Ophir is, properly speaking, a portion of
Arabia,[118] and Arabia was famous for its production of gold,[119]
and also for its precious stones.[120] Whether it likewise produced
almug-trees is doubtful;[121] and it is quite possible that the joint
fleet went further than Ophir proper, and obtained the "almug-wood"
from the east coast of Africa, or from India. The Somauli country
might have been as easily reached as South-eastern Arabia, and if
India is considerably more remote, yet there was nothing to prevent
the Phœnicians from finding their way to it.[122] We have, however, no
direct evidence that their commerce in the Indian Ocean ever took them
further than the Arabian coast, about E. Long. 55º.



CHAPTER X

MINING

  Surface gathering of metals, anterior to mining--Earliest known
  mining operations--Earliest Phœnician mining in Phœnicia Proper--
  Mines of Cyprus--Phœnician mining in Thasos and Thrace--in
  Sardinia--in Spain--Extent of the metallic treasures there--
  Phœnician methods not unlike those of the present day--Use of
  shafts, adits, and galleries--Roof of mines propped or arched--
  Ores crushed, pounded, and washed--Use of quicksilver unknown--
  Mines worked by slave labour.

The most precious and useful of the metals lie, in many places, so
near the earth's surface that, in the earliest times, mining is
unneeded and therefore unpractised. We are told that in Spain silver
was first discovered in consequence of a great fire, which consumed
all the forests wherewith the mountains were clothed, and lasted many
days; at the end of which time the surface of the soil was found to be
intersected by streams of silver from the melting of the superficial
silver ore through the intense heat of the conflagration. The natives
did not know what to do with the metal, so they bartered it away to
the Phœnician traders, who already frequented their country, in return
for some wares of very moderate value.[1] Whether this tale be true or
no, it is certain that even at the present day, in what are called
"new countries," valuable metals often show themselves on the surface
of the soil, either in the form of metalliferous earths, or of rocks
which shine with spangles of a metallic character, or occasionally,
though rarely, of actual masses of pure ore, sometimes encrusted with
an oxide, sometimes bare, bright, and unmistakable. In modern times,
whenever there is a rush into any gold region--whether California, or
Australia, or South Africa--the early yield is from the surface. The
first comers scratch the ground with a knife or with a pick-axe, and
are rewarded by discovering "nuggets" of greater or less dimensions;
the next flight of gold-finders search the beds of the streams; and it
is not until the supply from these two sources begins to fail that
mining, in the proper sense of the term, is attempted.

The earliest mining operations, whereof we have any record, are those
conducted by the Egyptian kings of the fourth, fifth and twelfth
dynasties, in the Sinaitic region. At two places in the mountains
between Suez and Mount Sinai, now known as the Wady Magharah and
Sarabit-el-Khadim, copper was extracted from the bosom of the earth by
means of shafts laboriously excavated in the rocks, under the auspices
of these early Pharaohs.[2] Hence at the time of the Exodus the
process of mining was familiar to the Hebrews, who could thus fully
appreciate the promise,[3] that they were about to be given "a good
land"--"a land whose stones were iron, and out of whose hills they
might /dig brass/." The Phœnicians, probably, derived their first
knowledge of mining from their communications with the Egyptians, and
no doubt first practised the art within the limits of their own
territory--in Lebanon, Casius, and Bargylus. The mineral stores of
these regions were, however, but scanty, and included none of the more
important metals, excepting iron. The Phœnicians were thus very early
in their history driven afield for the supply of their needs, and
among the principal causes of their first voyages of discovery must be
placed the desire of finding and occupying regions which contained the
metallic treasures wherein their own proper country was deficient.

It is probable that they first commenced mining operations on a large
scale in Cyprus. Here, according to Pliny,[4] copper was first
discovered; and though this may be a fable, yet here certainly it was
found in great abundance at a very early time, and was worked to such
an extent, that the Greeks knew copper, as distinct from bronze, by no
other name than that of {khalkos Kuprios}, whence the Roman /Æs
Cyprium/, and our own name for the metal. The principal mines were in
the southern mountain range, near Tamasus,[5] but there were others
also at Amathus, Soli, and Curium.[6] Some of the old workings have
been noticed by modern travellers, particularly near Soli and
Tamasus,[7] but they have neither been described anciently nor
examined scientifically in modern times. The ore from which the metal
was extracted is called /chalcitis/ by Pliny,[8] and may have been the
"chalcocite" of our present metallurgical science, which is a sulphide
containing very nearly eighty per cent. of copper. The brief account
which Strabo gives of the mines of Tamasus shows that the ore was
smelted in furnaces which were heated by wood fires. We gather also
from Strabo that Tamasus had silver mines.

That the Phœnicians conducted mining operations in Thasos we know from
Herodotus,[9] and from other writers of repute[10] we learn that they
extended these operations to the mainland opposite. Herodotus had
himself visited Thasos, and tells us that the mines were on the
eastern coast of the island, between two places which he calls
respectively Ænyra and Cœnyra. The metal sought was gold, and in their
quest of it the Phœnicians had, he says, turned an entire mountain
topsy-turvy. Here again no modern researches seem to have been made,
and nothing more is known than that at present the natives obtain no
gold from their soil, do not seek for it, and are even ignorant that
their island was ever a gold-producing region.[11] The case is almost
the same on the opposite coast, where in ancient times very rich mines
both of gold and silver abounded,[12] which the Phœnicians are said to
have worked, but where at the present day mining enterprise is almost
at a standstill, and only a very small quantity of silver is
produced.[13]

Sardinia can scarcely have been occupied by the Phœnicians for
anything but its metals. The southern and south-western parts of the
island, where they made their settlements, were rich in copper and
lead; and the position of the cities seems to indicate the intention
to appropriate these metals. In the vicinity of the lead mines are
enormous heaps of scoriæ, mounting up apparently to a very remote
era.[14] The scoriæ are not so numerous in the vicinity of the copper
mines, but "pigs" of copper have been found in the island, unlike any
of the Roman period, which are perhaps Phœnician, and furnish
specimens of the castings into which the metal was run, after it had
been fused and to some extent refined. The weight of the pigs is from
twenty-eight to thirty-seven kilogrammes.[15] Pigs of lead have also
been found, but they are less frequent.

But all the other mining operations of the Phœnicians were
insignificant compared with those of which the theatre was Spain.
Spain was the Peru of the ancient world, and surpassed its modern
rival, in that it produced not only gold and silver, but also copper,
iron, tin, and lead. Of these metals gold was the least abundant. It
was found, however, as gold dust in the bed of the Tagus;[16] and
there were mines of it in Gallicia,[17] in the Asturias, and
elsewhere. There was always some silver mixed with it, but in one of
the Gallician mines the proportion was less than three per cent.
Elsewhere the proportion reached to ten or even twelve and a half per
cent.; and, as there was no known mode of clearing the gold from it,
the produce of the Gallician mine was in high esteem and greatly
preferred to that of any other. Silver was yielded in very large
quantities. "Spain," says Diodorus Siculus,[18] "has the best and most
plentiful silver from mines of all the world." "The Spanish silver,"
says Pliny,[19] "is the best." When the Phœnicians first visited
Spain, they found the metal held in no esteem at all by the natives.
It was the common material of the cheapest drinking vessels, and was
readily parted with for almost anything that the merchants chose to
offer. Much of it was superficial, but the veins were found to run to
a great depth; and the discovery of one vein was a sure index of the
near vicinity of more.[20] The out-put of the Spanish silver mines
during the Phœnician, Carthaginian, and Roman periods was enormous,
and cannot be calculated; nor has the supply even yet failed
altogether. The iron and copper of Spain are also said to have been
exceedingly abundant in ancient times,[21] though, owing to the
inferior value of the metals, and to their wider distribution, but
little is recorded with regard to them. Its tin and lead, on the other
hand, as being metals found in comparatively few localities, receive
not infrequent mention. The Spanish tin, according to Posidonius, did
not crop out upon the surface,[22] but had to be obtained by mining.
It was produced in some considerable quantity in the country of the
Artabri, to the north of Lusitania,[23] as well as in Lusitania
itself, and in Gallicia;[24] but was found chiefly in small particles
intermixed with a dark sandy earth. Lead was yielded in greater
abundance; it was found in Cantabria, in Bætica, and many other
places.[25] Much of it was mixed with silver, and was obtained in the
course of the operations by means of which silver was smelted and
refined.[26] The mixed metal was called /galena/.[27] Lead, however,
was also found, either absolutely pure,[28] or so nearly so that the
alloy was inappreciable, and was exported in large quantities, both by
the Phœnicians and the Carthaginians, and also by the Romans. It was
believed that the metal had a power of growth and reproduction, so
that if a mine was deserted for a while and then re-opened, it was
sure to be found more productive than it was previously.[29] The fact
seems to be simply that the supply is inexhaustible, since even now
Spain furnishes more than half the lead that is consumed by the rest
of Europe. Besides the ordinary metals, Spain was capable of yielding
an abundance of quicksilver;[30] but this metal seems not to have
attracted the attention of the Phœnicians, who had no use for it.

The methods employed by the Phœnicians to obtain the metals which they
coveted were not, on the whole, unlike those which continue in use at
the present day. Where surface gold was brought down by the streams,
the ground in their vicinity, and such portions of their beds as could
be laid bare, were searched by the spade; any earth or sand that was
seen to be auriferous was carefully dug out and washed, till the
earthy particles were cleared away, and only the gold remained. Where
the metal lay deeper, perpendicular shafts were sunk into the ground
to a greater or less depth--sometimes, if we may believe Diodorus,[31]
to the depth of half a mile or more; from these shafts horizontal
adits were carried out at various levels, and from the adits there
branched lateral galleries, sometimes at right angles, sometimes
obliquely, which pursued either a straight or a tortuous course.[32]
The veins of metal were perseveringly followed up, and where faults
occurred in them, filled with trap,[33] or other hard rock, the
obstacle was either tunnelled through or its flank turned, and the
vein still pursued on the other side. As the danger of a fall of
material from the roofs of the adits and galleries was well
understood, it was customary to support them by means of wooden posts,
or, where the material was sufficiently firm, to arch them.[34] Still,
from time to time, falls would occur, with great injury and loss of
life to the miners. Nor was there much less danger where a mountain
was quarried for the sake of its metallic treasures. Here, too,
galleries were driven into the mountain-side, and portions of it so
loosened that after a time they detached themselves and fell with a
loud crash into a mass of /débris/.[35] It sometimes happened that, as
the workings proceeded, subterranean springs were tapped, which
threatened to flood the mine, and put an end to its further
utilisation. In such cases, wherever it was possible, tunnels were
constructed, and the water drained off to a lower level.[36] In the
deeper mines this, of course, could not be done, and such workings had
to be abandoned, until the invention of the Archimedes' screw (ab.
B.C. 220-190), when the water was pumped up to the surface, and so got
rid of.[37] But before this date Phœnicia had ceased to exist as an
independent country, and the mines that had once been hers were either
no longer worked, or had passed into the hands of the Romans or the
Carthaginians.

When the various ores were obtained, they were first of all crushed,
then pounded to a paste; after which, by frequent washings, the non-
metallic elements were to a large extent eliminated, and the metallic
ones alone left. These, being collected, were placed in crucibles of
white clay,[38] which were then submitted to the action of a furnace
heated to the melting point. This point could only be reached by the
use of the bellows. When it was reached, the impurities which floated
on the top of the molten metal were skimmed off, or the metal itself
allowed, by the turning of a cock, to flow from an upper crucible into
a lower one. For greater purity the melting and skimming process was
sometimes repeated; and, in the case of gold, the skimmings were
themselves broken up, pounded, and again submitted to the melting
pot.[39] The use of quicksilver, however, being unknown, the gold was
never wholly freed from the alloy of silver always found in it, nor
was the silver ever wholly freed from an alloy of lead.[40]

The Romans and Carthaginians worked their mines almost wholly by slave
labour; and very painful pictures are drawn of the sufferings
undergone by the unhappy victims of a barbarous and wasteful
system.[41] The gangs of slaves, we are told, remained in the mines
night and day, never seeing the sun, but living and dying in the murky
and fœtid atmosphere of the deep excavations. It can scarcely be hoped
that the Phœnicians were wiser or more merciful. They had a large
command of slave labour, and would naturally employ it where the work
to be done was exceptionally hard and disagreeable. Moreover, the
Carthaginians, their colonists, are likely to have kept up the system,
whatever it was, which they found established on succeeding to the
inheritance of the Phœnician mines, and the fact that they worked them
by means of slaves makes it more than probable that the Phœnicians had
done so before them.[42]

When the metals were regarded as sufficiently cleansed from
impurities, they were run into moulds, which took the form of bars,
pigs, or ingots. Pigs of copper and lead have, as already observed,
been found in Sardinia which may well belong to Phœnician times. There
is also in the museum of Truro a pig of tin, which, as it differs from
those made by the Romans, Normans, and later workers, has been
supposed to be Phœnician.[43] Ingots of gold and silver have not at
present been found on Phœnician localities; but the Persian practice,
witnessed to by Herodotus,[44] was probably adopted from the subject
nation, which confessedly surpassed all the others in the useful arts,
in commerce, and in practical sagacity.



CHAPTER XI

RELIGION

  Strength of the religious sentiment among the Phœnicians--Proofs--
  First stage of the religion, monotheistic--Second stage, a
  polytheism within narrow limits--Worship of Baal--of Ashtoreth--of
  El or Kronos--of Melkarth--of Dagon--of Hadad--of Adonis--of Sydyk
  --of Esmun--of the Cabeiri--of Onca--of Tanith--of Beltis--Third
  stage marked by introduction of foreign deities--Character of the
  Phœnician worship--Altars and sacrifice--Hymns of praise, temples,
  and votive offerings--Wide prevalence of human sacrifice and of
  licentious orgies--Institution of the Galli--Extreme corruption of
  the later religion--Views held on the subject of a future life--
  Piety of the great mass of the people earnest, though mistaken.

There can be no doubt that the Phœnicians were a people in whose minds
religion and religious ideas occupied a very prominent place.
Religiousness has been said to be one of the leading characteristics
of the Semitic race;[1] and it is certainly remarkable that with that
race originated the three principal religions, two of which are the
only progressive religions, of the modern world. Judaism,
Christianity, and Mohammedanism all arose in Western Asia within a
restricted area, and from nations whose Semitic origin is
unmistakable. The subject of ethnic affinities and differences, of the
transmission of qualities and characteristics, is exceedingly obscure;
but, if the theory of heredity be allowed any weight at all, there
should be no difficulty in accepting the view that particular races of
mankind have special leanings and aptitudes.

Still, the religiousness of the Phœnicians does not rest on any /à
priori/ arguments, or considerations of what is likely to have been.
Here was a nation among whom, in every city, the temple was the centre
of attraction, and where the piety of the citizens adorned every
temple with abundant and costly offerings. The monarchs who were at
the head of the various states showed the greatest zeal in continually
maintaining the honour of the gods, repaired and beautified the sacred
buildings, and occasionally added to their kingly dignity the highly
esteemed office of High Priest.[2] The coinage of the country bore
religious emblems,[3] and proclaimed the fact that the cities regarded
themselves as under the protection of this or that deity. Both the
kings and their subjects bore commonly religious names--names which
designated them as the worshippers or placed them under the tutelage
of some god or goddess. Abd-alonim, Abdastartus, Abd-osiris, Abdemon
(which is properly Abd-Esmun), Abdi-milkut, were names of the former
kind, Abi-baal (= "Baal is my father"), Itho-bal (= "with him is
Baal"), Baleazar or Baal-azur (= "Baal protects"), names of the
latter. The Phœnician ships carried images of the gods[4] in the place
of figure-heads. Wherever the Phœnicians went, they bore with them
their religion and their worship; in each colony they planted a temple
or temples, and everywhere throughout their wide dominion the same
gods were worshipped with the same rites and with the same
observances.

In considering the nature of the Phœnician religion, we must
distinguish between its different stages. There is sufficient reason
to believe that originally, either when they first occupied their
settlements upon the Mediterranean or before they moved from their
primitive seats upon the shores of the Persian Gulf, the Phœnicians
were Monotheists. We must not look for information on this subject to
the pretentious work which Philo of Byblus, in the first or second
century of our era, put forth with respect to the "Origines" of his
countrymen, and attributed to Sanchoniatho;[5] we must rather look to
the evidence of language and fact, records which may indeed be
misread, but which cannot well be forged or falsified. These will show
us that in the earliest times the religious sentiment of the
Phœnicians acknowledged only a single deity--a single mighty power,
which was supreme over the whole universe. The names by which they
designated him were El, "great;" Ram or Rimmon, "high;" Baal, "Lord;"
Melek or Molech, "King;" Eliun, "Supreme;" Adonai, "My Lord;"
Bel-samin, "Lord of Heaven," and the like.[6] Distinct deities could
no more be intended by such names as these than by those under which
God is spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures, several of them identical
with the Phœnician names--El or Elohim, "great;" Jehovah, "existing;"
Adonai, "my Lord;" Shaddai, "strong;" El Eliun,[7] "the supreme Great
One." How far the Phœnicians actually realised all that their names
properly imply, whether they went so far as to divest God wholly of a
material nature, whether they viewed Him as the Creator, as well as
the Lord, of the world, are problems which it is impossible, with the
means at present at our disposal, to solve. But they certainly viewed
Him as "the Lord of Heaven,"[8] and, if so, no doubt also as the Lord
of earth; they believed Him to be "supreme" or "the Most High;" and
they realised his personal relation to each one of his worshippers,
who were privileged severally to address Him as Adonai--"/my/ Lord."
It may be presumed that at this early stage of the religion there was
no idolatry; when One God alone is acknowledged and recognised, the
feeling is naturally that expressed in the Egyptian hymn of praise--
"He is not graven in marble; He is not beheld; His abode is unknown;
there is no building that can contain Him; unknown is his name in
heaven; He doth not manifest his forms; vain are all
representations."[9]

But this happy state of things did not--perhaps we may say, could not
--in the early condition of the human intelligence, last long. Fallen
man, left to himself, very soon corrupts his way upon the earth; his
hands deal with wickedness; and, in a little while, "every imagination
of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually."[10] When he
becomes conscious to himself of sin, he ceases to be able to endure
the thought of One Perfect Infinite Being, omnipotent, ever-present,
who reads his heart, who is "about his path, and about his bed, and
spies out all his ways."[11] He instinctively catches at anything
whereby he may be relieved from the intolerable burden of such a
thought; and here the imperfection of language comes to his aid. As he
has found it impossible to express in any one word all that is
contained in his idea of the Divine Being, he has been forced to give
Him many names, each of them originally expressive of some one of that
Being's attributes. But in course of time these words have lost their
force--their meaning has been forgotten--and they have come to be mere
proper names, designative but not significative. Here is material for
the perverted imagination to work upon. A separate being is imagined
answering to each of the names; and so the /nomina/ become
/numina/.[12] Many gods are substituted for one; and the idea of God
is instantly lowered. The gods have different spheres. No god is
infinite; none is omnipotent, none omnipresent; therefore none
omniscient. The aweful, terrible nature of God is got rid of, and a
company of angelic beings takes its place, none of them very alarming
to the conscience.

In its second stage the religion of Phœnicia was a polytheism, less
multitudinous than most others, and one in which the several
divinities were not distinguished from one another by very marked or
striking features. At the head of the Pantheon stood a god and a
goddess--Baal and Ashtoreth. Baal, "the Lord," or Baal-samin,[13] "the
Lord of Heaven," was compared by the Greeks to their Zeus, and by the
Romans to their Jupiter. Mythologically, he was only one among many
gods, but practically he stood alone; he was the chief of the gods,
the main object of worship, and the great ruler and protector of the
Phœnician people. Sometimes, but not always, he had a solar character,
and was represented with his head encircled by rays.[14] Baalbek,
which was dedicated to him, was properly "the city of the Sun," and
was called by the Greeks Heliopolis. The solar character of Baal is,
however, far from predominant, and as early as the time of Josiah we
find the Sun worshipped separately from him,[15] no doubt under a
different name. Baal is, to a considerable extent, a city god. Tyre
especially was dedicated to him; and we hear of the "Baal of Tyre"[16]
and again of the "Baal of Tarsus."[17] Essentially, he was the
embodiment of the generative principle in nature--"the god of the
creative power, bringing all things to life everywhere."[18] Hence,
"his statue rode upon bulls, for the bull was the symbol of generative
power; and he was also represented with bunches of grapes and
pomegranates in his hand,"[19] emblems of productivity. The sacred
conical stones and pillars dedicated in his temples[20] may have had
their origin in a similar symbolism. As polytheistic systems had
always a tendency to enlarge themselves, Baal had no sooner become a
separate god, distinct from El, and Rimmon, and Molech, and Adonai,
than he proceeded to multiply himself, and from Baal became
Baalim,[21] either because the local Baals--Baal-Tzur, Baal-Sidon,
Baal-Tars, Baal-Libnan, Baal-Hermon--were conceived of as separate
deities, or because the aspects of Baal--Baal as Sun-God, Baal as Lord
of Heaven, Baal as lord of flies,[22], &c.--were so viewed, and grew
to be distinct objects of worship. In later times he was identified
with the Egyptian Ammon, and worshipped as Baal-Hammon.

Baal is known to have had temples at Baalbek, at Tyre, at Tarsus, at
Agadir[23] (Gades), in Sardinia,[24] at Carthage, and at Ekron. Though
not at first worshipped under a visible form, he came to have statues
dedicated to him,[25] which received the usual honours. Sometimes, as
already observed, his head was encircled with a representation of the
solar rays; sometimes his form was assimilated to that under which the
Egyptians of later times worshipped their Ammon. Seated upon a throne
and wrapped in a long robe, he presented the appearance of a man in
the flower of his age, bearded, and of solemn aspect, with the carved
horn of a ram on either side of his forehead. Figures of rams also
supported the arms of his throne on either side, and on the heads of
these two supports his hands rested.[26]

The female deity whose place corresponded to that of Baal in the
Phœnician Pantheon, and who was in a certain sense his companion and
counterpart, was Ashtoreth or Astarte. As Baal was the embodiment of
the generative principle in nature, so was Ashtoreth of the receptive
and productive principle. She was the great nature-goddess, the Magna
Mater, regent of the stars, queen of heaven, giver of life, and source
of woman's fecundity.[27] Just as Baal had a solar, so she had a lunar
aspect, being pictured with horns upon her head representative of the
lunar crescent.[28] Hence, as early as the time of Moses, there was a
city on the eastern side of Jordan, named after her, Ashtoreth-
Karnaim,[29] or "Astarte of the two horns." Her images are of many
forms. Most commonly she appears as a naked female, with long hair,
sometimes gathered into tresses, and with her two hands supporting her
two breasts.[30] Occasionally she is a mother, seated in a comfortable
chair, and nursing her babe.[31] Now and then she is draped, and holds
a dove to her breast, or else she takes an attitude of command, with
the right hand raised, as if to bespeak attention. Sometimes, on the
contrary, her figure has that modest and retiring attitude which has
caused it to be described by a distinguished archæologist[32] as "the
Phœnician prototype of the Venus de Medici." The Greeks and Romans,
who identified Baal determinately with their Zeus or Jupiter, found it
very much more difficult to fix on any single goddess in their
Pantheon as the correspondent of Astarte. Now they made her Hera or
Juno, now Aphrodite or Venus, now Athene, now Artemis, now Selene, now
Rhea or Cybele. But her aphrodisiac character was certainly the one in
which she most frequently appeared. She was the goddess of the sexual
passion, rarely, however, represented with the chaste and modest
attributes of the Grecian Aphrodite-Urania, far more commonly with
those coarser and more repulsive ones which characterise Aphrodite
Pandemos.[33] Her temples were numerous, though perhaps not quite so
numerous as those of Baal. The most famous were those at Sidon,
Aphaca, Ashtoreth-Karnaim, Paphos, Pessinus, and Carthage. At Sidon
the kings were sometimes her high-priests;[34] and her name is found
as a frequent element in Phœnician personal names, royal and other:
e.g.--Astartus, Abdastartus, Delæastartus, Am-ashtoreth, Bodoster,
Bostor, &c.

The other principal Phœnician deities were El, Melkarth, Dagon, Hadad,
Adonis, Sydyk, Eshmun, the Cabeiri, Onca, Tanith, Tanata, or Anaitis,
and Baalith, Baaltis, or Beltis. El, or Il, originally a name of the
Supreme God, became in the later Phœnician mythology a separate and
subordinate divinity, whom the Greeks compared to their Kronos[35] and
the Romans to their Saturn. El was the special god of Gebal or
Byblus,[36] and was worshipped also with peculiar rites at
Carthage.[37] He was reckoned the son of Uranus and the father of
Beltis, to whom he delivered over as her especial charge the city of
Byblus.[38] Numerous tales were told of him. While reigning on earth
as king of Byblus, or king of Phœnicia, he had fallen in love with a
nymph of the country, called Anobret, by whom he had a son named
Ieoud. This son, much as he loved him, when great dangers from war
threatened the land, he first invested with the emblems of royalty,
and then sacrificed.[39] Uranus (Heaven) married his sister Ge
(Earth), and Il or Kronos was the issue of this marriage, as also were
Dagon, Bætylus, and Atlas. Ge, being dissatisfied with the conduct of
her husband, induced her son Kronos to make war upon him, and Kronos,
with the assistance of Hermes, overcame Uranus, and having driven him
from his kingdom succeeded to the imperial power. Besides sacrificing
Ieoud, Kronos murdered another of his sons called Sadid, and also a
daughter whose name is not given. Among his wives were Astarte, Rhea,
Dioné, Eimarmené, and Hora, of whom the first three were his
sisters.[40] There is no need to pursue this mythological tangle. If
it meant anything to the initiated, the meaning is wholly lost; and
the stories, gravely as they are related by the ancient historian, to
the modern, who has no key to them, are almost wholly valueless.

Originally, Melkarth would seem to have been a mere epithet,
representing one aspect of Baal. The word is formed from the two roots
/melek/ and /kartha/[41] (= Heb. /kiriath/, "city"), and means "King
of the City," or "City King," which Baal was considered to be. But the
two names in course of time drifted apart, and Melicertes, in Philo
Byblius, has no connection at all with Baal-samin.[42] The Greeks, who
identified Baal with their Zeus, viewed Melkarth as corresponding to
their Heracles, or Hercules; and the later Phœnicians, catching at
this identification, represented Melkarth under the form of a huge
muscular man, with a lion's skin and sometimes with a club.[43]
Melkarth was especially worshipped at Tyre, of which city he was the
tutelary deity, at Thasos, and at Gades. Herodotus describes the
temple of Hercules at Tyre, and attributes to it an antiquity of 2,300
years before his own time.[44] He also visited a temple dedicated to
the same god at Thasos.[45] With Gades were connected the myths of
Hercules' expedition to the west, of his erection of the pillars, his
defeat of Chrysaor of the golden sword, and his successful foray upon
the flocks and herds of the triple Geryon.[46] Whether these legends
were Greek or Phœnician in origin is uncertain; but the Phœnicians, at
any rate, adopted them, and here have been lately found on Phœnician
sites representations both of Geryon himself,[47] and the carrying off
by Hercules of his cattle.[48] The temple of Heracles at Gades is
mentioned by Strabo[49] and others. It was on the eastern side of the
island, where the strait between the island and the continent was
narrowest. Founded about B.C. 1100, it continued to stand to the time
of Silius Italicus, and, according to the tradition, had never needed
repair.[50] An unextinguished fire had burnt upon its altar for
thirteen hundred years; and the worship had remained unchanged--no
image profaned the Holy of Holies, where the god dwelt, waited on by
bare-footed priests with heads shaved, clothed in white linen robes,
and vowed to celibacy.[51] The name of the god occurs as an element in
a certain small number of Phœnician names of men--e.g. Bomilcar,
Himilcar, Abd-Melkarth, and the like.

Dagon appears in scripture only as a Philistine god,[52] which would
not prove him to have been acknowledged by the Phœnicians; but as
Philo of Byblus admits him among the primary Phœnician deities, making
him a son of Uranus, and a brother of Il or Kronis,[53] it is perhaps
right that he should be allowed a place in the Phœnician list.
According to Philo, he was the god of agriculture, the discoverer of
wheat, and the inventor of the plough.[54] Whether he was really
represented, as is commonly supposed,[55] in the form of a fish, or as
half man and half fish, is extremely doubtful. In the Hebrew account
of the fall of Dagon's image before the Ark of the Covenant at Ashdod
there is no mention made of any "fishy part;" nor is there anything in
the Assyrian remains to connect the name Dagon, which occurs in them,
with the remarkable figure of a fish-god so frequent in the bas-
reliefs. That figure would seem rather to represent, or symbolise,
either Hea or Nin. The notion of Dagon's fishy form seems to rest
entirely on an etymological basis--on the fact, i.e. that /dag/ means
"fish," in Hebrew. In Assyrian, however, /kha/ is "fish," and not
/dag/; while in Hebrew, though /dag/ is "fish," /dagan/ is "corn." It
may be noted also that the Phœnician remains contain no representation
of a fish deity. On the whole, it is perhaps best to be content with
the account of Philo, and to regard the Phœnician Dagon as a "Zeus
Arotrios"--a god presiding over agriculture and especially worshipped
by husbandmen. The name, however, does not occur in the Phœnician
remains which have come down to us.

Hadad, like Dagon, obtains his right to be included in the list of
Phœnician deities solely from the place assigned to him by Philo.
Otherwise he would naturally be viewed as an Aramean god, worshipped
especially in Aram-Zobah, and in Syria of Damascus.[56] In Syria, he
was identified with the sun;[57] and it is possible that in the
Phœnician religion he was the Sun-God, worshipped (as we have seen)
sometimes independently of Baal. His image was represented with the
solar rays streaming down from it towards the earth, so as to indicate
that the earth received from him all that made it fruitful and
abundant.[58] Macrobius connects his name with the Hebrew /chad/,
"one;" but this derivation is improbable.[59] Philo gives him the
title of "King of Gods," and says that he reigned conjointly with
Astarte and Demaroüs,[60] but this does not throw much light on the
real Phœnician conception of him. The local name, Hadad-rimmon,[61]
may seem to connect him with the god Rimmon, likewise a Syrian
deity,[62] and it is quite conceivable that the two words may have
been alternative names of the same god, just as Phœbus and Apollo were
with the Greeks. We may conjecture that the Sun was worshipped under
both names in Syria, while in Phœnicia Hadad was alone made use of.
The worship of Baal as the Sun, which tended to prevail ever more and
more, ousted Hadad from his place, and caused him to pass into
oblivion.

Adonis was probably, like Hadad, originally a sun-god; but the myths
connected with him gave him, at any rate in the late Phœnician times,
a very distinct and definite personality. He was made the son of
Cinryas, a mythic king of Byblus,[63] and the husband of Astarte or
Ashtoreth. One day, as he chased the wild boar in Lebanon, near the
sources of the river of Byblus, the animal which he was hunting turned
upon him, and so gored his thigh that he died of the wound. Henceforth
he was mourned annually. At the turn of the summer solstice, the
anniversary of his death, all the women of Byblus went in a wild
procession to Aphaca, in the Lebanon, where his temple stood, and wept
and wailed on account of his death. The river, which his blood had
once actually stained, turned red to show its sympathy with the
mourners, and was thought to flow with his blood afresh. After the
"weeping for Tammuz"[64] had continued for a definite time, the
mourning terminated with the burial of an image of the god in the
sacred precinct. Next day Adonis was supposed to return to life; his
image was disinterred and carried back to the temple with music and
dances, and every circumstance of rejoicing.[65] Wild orgies followed,
and Aphaca became notorious for scenes to which it will be necessary
to recur hereafter. The Adonis myth is generally explained as
representing either the perpetually recurrent decay and recovery of
nature, or the declension of the Sun as he moves from the summer to
the winter constellations, and his subsequent return and reappearance
in all his strength. But myths obtained a powerful hold on ancient
imaginations, and the worshippers of Adonis probably in most cases
forgot the symbolical character of his cult, and looked on him as a
divine or heroic personage, who had actually gone through all the
adventures ascribed to him in the legend. Hence the peculiarly local
character of his worship, of which we find traces only at Byblus and
at Jerusalem.

Sydyk, "Justice," or, the "Just One,"[66] whose name corresponds to
the Hebrew Zadok or Zedek, appears in the Phœnician mythology
especially as the father of Esmun and the Cabeiri. Otherwise he is
only known as the son of Magus (!) and the discoverer of salt.[67] It
is perhaps his name which forms the final element in Melchizedek,
Adoni-zedek,[68] and the like. We have no evidence that he was really
worshipped by the Phœnicians.

Esmun, on the other hand, the son of Sydyk, would seem to have been an
object of worship almost as much as any other deity. He was the
special god of Berytus,[69] but was honoured also in Cyprus, at Sidon,
at Carthage, in Sardinia, and elsewhere.[70] His name forms a frequent
element in Phœnician names, royal and other:--e.g. Esmun-azar, Esmun-
nathan, Han-Esmun, Netsib-Esmun, Abd-Esmun, &c. According to
Damascius,[71] he was the eighth son of Sydyk, whence his name, and
the chief of the Cabeiri. Whereas they were dwarfish and misshapen, he
was a youth of most beautiful appearance, truly worthy of admiration.
Like Adonis, he was fond of hunting in the woods that clothe the
flanks of Lebanon, and there he was seen by Astronoë, the Phœnician
goddess, the mother of the gods (in whom we cannot fail to recognise
Astarte), who persecuted him with her attentions to such an extent
that to escape her he was driven to the desperate resource of self-
emasculation. Upon this the goddess, greatly grieved, called him Pæan,
and by means of quickening warmth brought him back to life, and
changed him from a man into a god, which he thenceforth remained. The
Phœnicians called him Esmun, "the eighth," but the Greeks worshipped
him as Asclepius, the god of healing, who gave life and health to
mankind. Some of the later Phœnicians regarded him as identical with
the atmosphere, which, they said, was the chief source of health to
man.[72] But it is not altogether clear that the earlier Phœnicians
attached to him any healing character.[73]

The seven other Cabeiri, or "Great Ones," equally with Esmun the sons
of Sydyk, were dwarfish gods who presided over navigation,[74] and
were the patrons of sailors and ships. The special seat of their
worship in Phœnicia Proper was Berytus, but they were recognised also
in several of the Phœnician settlements, as especially in Lemnos,
Imbrus, and Samothrace.[75] Ships were regarded as their
invention,[76] and a sculptured image of some one or other of them was
always placed on every Phœnician war-galley, either at the stern or
stem of the vessel.[77] They were also viewed as presiding over metals
and metallurgy,[78] having thus some points of resemblance to the
Greek Hephæstus and the Latin Vulcan. Pigmy and misshapen gods belong
to that fetishism which has always had charms for the Hamitic nations;
and it may be suspected that the Phœnicians adopted the Cabeiri from
their Canaanite predecessors, who were of the race of Ham.[79] The
connection between these pigmy deities and the Egyptian Phthah, or
rather Phthah-Sokari, is unmistakable, and was perceived by
Herodotus.[80] Clay pigmy figurines found on Phœnician sites[81] very
closely resemble the Egyptian images of that god; and the coins
attributed to Cossura exhibit a similar dwarfish form, generally
carrying a hammer in the right hand.[82] An astral character has been
attached by some writers to the Cabeiri,[83] but chiefly on account of
their number, which is scarcely a sufficient proof.

Several Greek writers speak of a Phœnician goddess corresponding to
the Grecian Athene,[84] and some of them say that she was named Onga
or Onca.[85] The Phœnician remains give us no such name; but as Philo
Byblius has an "Athene" among his Phœnician deities, whom he makes the
daughter of Il, or Kronos, and the queen of Attica,[86] it is perhaps
best to allow Onca to retain her place in the Phœnician Pantheon.
Philo says that Kronos /by her advice/ shaped for himself out of iron
a sword and a spear; we may therefore presume that she was a war-
goddess (as was Pallas-Athene among the Greeks), whence she naturally
presided over the gates of towns,[87] which were built and fortified
for warlike purposes.

The worship of a goddess, called Tanath or Tanith, by the later
Phœnicians, is certain, since, besides the evidence furnished by the
name Abd-Tanith, i.e. "Servant of Tanith,"[88] the name Tanith itself
is distinctly read on a number of votive tablets brought from
Carthage, in a connection which clearly implies her recognition, not
only as a goddess, but as a great goddess, the principal object of
Carthaginian worship. The form of inscription on the tablets is,
ordinarily, as follows:--[89]

  "To the great [goddess], Tanith, and
  To our lord and master Baal-Hammon.
  The offerer is * * * * *,
  Son of * * * * *, son of * * * *."

Tanith is invariable placed before Baal, as though superior to him,
and can be no other than the celestial goddess (Dea cœlestis), whose
temple in the Roman Carthage was so celebrated.[90] The Greeks
regarded her as equivalent to their Artemis;[91] the Romans made her
Diana, or Juno, or Venus.[92] Practically she must at Carthage have
taken the place of Ashtoreth. Apuleius describes her as having a lunar
character, like Ashtoreth, and calls her "the parent of all things,
the mistress of the elements, the initial offspring of the ages, the
highest of the deities, the queen of the Manes, the first of the
celestials, the single representative of all the gods and goddesses,
the one divinity whom all the world worships in many shapes, with
varied rites, and under a multitude of names."[93] He says that she
was represented as riding upon a lion, and it is probably her form
which appears upon some of the later coins of Carthage, as well as
upon a certain number of gems.[94] The origin of the name is
uncertain. Gesenius would connect it at once with the Egyptian Neith
(Nit), and with the Syrian Anaïtis or Tanaïtis;[95] but the double
identification is scarcely tenable, since Anaïtis was, in Egypt, not
Neith, but Anta.[96] The subject is very obscure, and requires further
investigation.

Baaltis, or Beltis, was, according to Philo Byblius, the daughter of
Uranus and the sister of Asthoreth or Astarte.[97] Il made her one of
his many wives, and put the city of Byblus, which he had founded,
under her special protection.[98] It is doubtful, however, whether she
was really viewed by the Phœnicians as a separate goddess, and not
rather as Ashtoreth under another name. The word is the equivalent of
{...}, "my lady," a very suitable title for the supreme goddess.
Beltis, indeed, in Babylonia, was distinct from Ishtar;[99] but this
fact must not be regarded as any sufficient proof that the case was
the same in Phœnicia. The Phœnician polytheism was decidedly more
restricted than the Babylonian, and did not greatly affect the
needless multiplication of divinities. Baaltis in Phœnicia may be the
Beltis of Babylon imported at a comparatively late date into the
country, but is more probably an alternative name, or rather, perhaps,
a mere honorary title of Ashtoreth.[100]

The chief characteristic of the third period of the Phœnician religion
was the syncretistic tendency,[101] whereby foreign gods were called
in, and either identified with the old national divinities, or joined
with them, and set by their side. Ammon, Osiris, Phthah, Pasht, and
Athor, were introduced from Egypt, Tanith from either Egypt or Syria,
Nergal from Assyria, Beltis (Baaltis) perhaps from Babylon. The
worship of Osiris in the later times appears from such names as Abd-
Osir, Osir-shamar, Melek-Osir, and the like,[102] and is represented
on coins with Phœnician legends, which are attributed either to Malta
or Gaulos.[103] Osiris was, it would seem, identified with
Adonis,[104] and was said to have been buried at Byblus;[105] which
was near the mouth of the Adonis river. His worship was not perhaps
very widely spread; but there are traces of it at Byblus, in Cyprus,
and in Malta.[106] Ammon was identified with Baal in his solar
character,[107] and was generally worshipped in conjunction with
Tanith, more especially at Carthage.[108] He was represented with his
head encircled by rays, and with a perfectly round face.[109] His
common title was "Lord" {...}, but in Numidia he was worshipped as
"the Eternal King" {...}.[110] As the giver of all good things, he
held trees or fruits in his hands.[111]

The Phœnicians worshipped their gods, like most other ancient nations,
with prayer, with hymns of praise, with sacrifices, with processions,
and with votive offerings. We do not know whether they had any
regularly recurrent day, like the Jewish Sabbath, or Christian Sunday,
on which worship took place in the temples generally; but at any rate
each temple had its festival times, when multitudes flocked to it, and
its gods were honoured with prolonged services and sacrifices on a
larger scale than ordinary. Most festivals were annual, but some
recurred at shorter intervals; and, besides the festivals, there was
an every day cult, which was a duty incumbent upon the priests, but at
which the private worshipper also might assist to offer prayer or
sacrifice. The ordinary sacrificial animals were oxen, cows, goats,
sheep, and lambs; swine were not offered, being regarded as
unclean;[112] but the stag was an acceptable victim, at any rate on
certain occasions.[113] At all functions the priests attended in large
numbers, habited in white garments of linen or cotton, and wearing a
stiff cap or mitre upon their heads:[114] on one occasion of a
sacrifice Lucian counted above three hundred engaged in the
ceremony.[115] It was the duty of some to slay the victims; of others
to pour libations; of a third class to bear about pans of coal on
which incense could be offered; of a fourth to attend upon the
altars.[116] The priests of each temple had at their head a Chief or
High Priest, who was robed in purple and wore a golden tiara. His
office, however, continued only for a year, when another was chosen to
succeed him.[117]

Ordinarily, sacrifices were offered, in Phœnicia as elsewhere, singly,
and upon altars; but sometimes it was customary to have a great
holocaust. Large trees were dug up by the roots, and planted in the
court of the temple; the victims, whether goats, or sheep, or cattle
of any other kind, were suspended by ropes from the branches; birds
were similarly attached, and garments, and vessels in gold and silver.
Then the images of the gods belonging to the temple were brought out,
and carried in a solemn procession round the trees; after which the
trees were set on fire, and the whole was consumed in a mighty
conflagration.[118] The season for this great holocaust was the
commencement of the spring-time, when the goodness of Heaven in once
more causing life to spring up on every side seemed to require man's
special acknowledgment.

Hymns of praise are spoken of especially in connection with this same
Spring-Festival.[119] Votive offerings were continually being offered
in every temple by such as believed that they had received any benefit
from any god, either in consequence of their vows, or prayers, or even
by the god's spontaneous action. The sites of temples yield numerous
traces of such offerings. Sometimes they are in the shape of stone
/stelæ/ or pillars, inscribed and more or less ornamented,[120]
sometimes of tablets placed within an ornamental border, and generally
accompanied by some rude sculptures;[121] more often of figures,
either in bronze or clay, which are mostly of a somewhat rude
character. M. Renan observes with respect to these figures, which are
extremely numerous:--"Ought we to see in these images, as has been
supposed, long series of portraits of priests and priestesses
continued through several centuries? We do not think so. The person
represented in these statues appears to us to be the author of a vow
or of a sacrifice made to the divinity of the temple . . . Vows and
sacrifices were very fleeting things; it might be feared that the
divinity would soon forget them. An inscription was already recognised
as a means of rendering the memory of a vow more lasting; but a statue
was a momento still more--nay, much more efficacious. By having
himself represented under the eyes of the divinity in the very act of
accomplishing his vow, a man called to mind, as one may say,
incessantly the offering which he had made to the god, and the homage
which he had rendered him. An idea of this sort is altogether in
conformity with the materialistic and self-interested character of the
Phœnician worship, where the vow is a kind of business affair, a
matter of debtor and creditor account, in which a man stipulates very
clearly what he is to give, and holds firmly that he is to be paid in
return . . . We have then, in these statues, representations of pious
men, who came one after another to acquit themselves of their debt in
the presence of the divinity; in order that the latter should not
forget that the debt was discharged, they set up their images in front
of the god. The image was larger or smaller, more or less carefully
elaborated, in a more or less valuable material, according to the
means of the individual who consecrated it."[122]

Thus far there was no very remarkable difference between the Phœnician
religious system and other ancient Oriental worships, which have a
general family likeness, and differ chiefly in the names and number of
the deities, the simplicity or complication of the rites, and the
greater or less power and dignity attached to the priestly office. In
these several respects the Phœnician religion seems to have leant
towards the side of simplicity, the divinities recognised being,
comparatively speaking, few, priestly influence not great, and the
ceremonial not very elaborate. But there were two respects in which
the religion was, if not singular, at any rate markedly different from
ordinary polytheisms, though less in the principles involved than in
the extent to which they were carried out in practice. These were the
prevalence of licentious orgies and of human sacrifice. The worship of
Astarte was characterised by the one, the worship of Baal by the
other. Phœnician mythology taught that the great god, Il or El, when
reigning upon earth as king of Byblus, had, under circumstances of
extreme danger to his native land, sacrificed his dearly loved son,
Ieoud, as an expiatory offering. Divine sanction had thus been given
to the horrid rite; and thenceforth, whenever in Phœnicia either
public or private calamity threatened, it became customary that human
victims should be selected, the nobler and more honourable the better,
and that the wrath of the gods should be appeased by taking their
lives. The mode of death was horrible. The sacrifices were to be
consumed by fire; the life given by the Fire God he should also take
back again by the flames which destroy being. The rabbis describe the
image of Moloch as a human figure with a bull's head and outstretched
arms;[123] and the account which they give is confirmed by what
Diodorus relates of the Carthaginian Kronos. His image, Diodorus
says,[124] was of metal, and was made hot by a fire kindled within it;
the victims were placed in its arms and thence rolled into the fiery
lap below. The most usual form of the rite was the sacrifice of their
children--especially of their eldest sons[125]--by parents. "This
custom was grounded in part on the notion that children were the
dearest possession of their parents, and, in part, that as pure and
innocent beings they were the offerings of atonement most certain to
pacify the anger of the deity; and further, that the god of whose
essence the generative power of nature was had a just title of that
which was begotten of man, and to the surrender of their children's
lives . . . Voluntary offering on the part of the parents was
essential to the success of the sacrifice; even the first-born, nay,
the only child of the family, was given up. The parents stopped the
cries of their children by fondling and kissing them, for the victim
ought not to weep; and the sound of complaint was drowned in the din
of flutes and kettledrums. Mothers, according to Plutarch,[126] stood
by without tears or sobs; if they wept or sobbed they lost the honour
of the act, and their children were sacrificed notwithstanding. Such
sacrifices took place either annually or on an appointed day, or
before great enterprises, or on the occasion of public calamities, to
appease the wrath of the god."[127]

In the worship of Astarte the prostitution of women, and of effeminate
men, played the same part that child murder did in the worship of
Baal. "This practice," says Dr. Döllinger,[128] "so widely spread in
the world of old, the delusion that no service more acceptable could
be rendered a deity than that of unchastity, was deeply rooted in the
Asiatic mind. Where the deity was in idea sexual, or where two deities
in chief, one a male and the other a female, stood in juxtaposition,
there the sexual relation appeared as founded upon the essence of the
deity itself, and the instinct and its satisfaction as that in men
which most corresponded with the deity. Thus lust itself became a
service of the gods; and, as the fundamental idea of sacrifice is that
of the immediate or substitutive surrender of a man's self to the
deity, so the woman could do the goddess no better service than by
prostitution. Hence it was the custom [in some places] that a maiden
before her marriage should prostitute herself once in the temple of
the goddess;[129] and this was regarded as the same in kind with the
offering of the first-fruits of the field." Lucian, a heathen and an
eye-witness, tells us[130]--"I saw at Byblus the grand temple of the
Byblian Venus, in which are accomplished the orgies relating to
Adonis; and I learnt the nature of the orgies. For the Byblians say
that the wounding of Adonis by the boar took place in their country;
and, in memory of the accident, they year by year beat their breasts,
and utter lamentations, and go through the orgies, and hold a great
mourning throughout the land. When the weeping is ended, first of all,
they make to Adonis the offerings usually made to a corpse; after
which, on the next day, they feign that he has come to life again, and
hold a procession [of his image] in the open air. But previously they
shave their heads, like the Egyptians when an Apis dies; and if any
woman refuse to do so, she must sell her beauty during one day to all
who like. Only strangers, however, are permitted to make the purchase,
and the money paid is expended on a sacrifice which is offered to the
goddess." "In this way," as Dr. Döllinger goes on to say, "they went
so far at last as to contemplate the abominations of unnatural lust as
a homage rendered to the deity, and to exalt it into a regular cultus.
The worship of the goddess [Ashtoreth] at Aphaca in the Lebanon was
specially notorious in this respect."[131] Here, according to
Eusebius, was, so late as the time of Constantine the Great, a temple
in which the old Phœnician rites were still retained. "This," he says,
"was a grove and a sacred enclosure, not situated, as most temples
are, in the midst of a city, and of market-places, and of broad
streets, but far away from either road or path, on the rocky slopes of
Libanus. It was dedicated to a shameful goddess, the goddess
Aphrodite. A school of wickedness was this place for all such
profligate persons as had ruined their bodies by excessive luxury. The
men there were soft and womanish--men no longer; the dignity of their
sex they rejected; with impure lust they thought to honour the deity.
Criminal intercourse with women, secret pollutions, disgraceful and
nameless deeds, were practised in the temple, where there was no
restraining law, and no guardian to preserve decency."[132]

One fruit of this system was the extraordinary institution of the
Galli. The Galli were men, who made themselves as much like women as
they could, and offered themselves for purposes of unnatural lust to
either sex. Their existence may be traced in Israel and Judah,[133] as
well as in Syria and Phœnicia.[134] At great festivals, under the
influence of a strong excitement, amid the din of flutes and drums and
wild songs, a number of the male devotees would snatch up swords or
knives, which lay ready for the purpose, throw off their garments, and
coming forward with a loud shout, proceed to castrate themselves
openly. They would then run through the streets of the city, with the
mutilated parts in their hands, and throw them into the houses of the
inhabitants, who were bound in such case to provide the thrower with
all the apparel and other gear needful for a woman.[135] This apparel
they thenceforth wore, and were recognised as attached to the worship
of Astarte, entitled to reside in her temples, and authorised to take
part in her ceremonies. They joined with the priests and the sacred
women at festival times in frenzied dances and other wild orgies,
shouting, and cutting themselves on the arms, and submitting to be
flogged one by another.[136] At other seasons they "wandered from
place to place, taking with them a veiled image or symbol of their
goddess, and clad in women's apparel of many colours, and with their
faces and eyes painted in female fashion, armed with swords and
scourges, they threw themselves by a wild dance into bacchanalian
ecstasy, in which their long hair was draggled through the mud. They
bit their own arms, and then hacked themselves with their swords, or
scourged themselves in penance for a sin supposed to have been
committed against the goddess. In these scenes, got up to aid the
collection of money, by long practice they contrived to cut themselves
so adroitly as not to inflict on themselves any very serious
wounds."[137]

It is difficult to estimate the corrupting effect upon practice and
morals of a religious system which embraced within it so many sensual
and degrading elements. Where impurity is made an essential part of
religion, there the very fountain of life is poisoned, and that which
should have been "a savour of life unto life"--a cleansing and
regenerating influence--becomes "a savour of death unto death"--an
influence leading on to the worst forms of moral degradation.
Phœnician religion worked itself out, and showed its true character,
in the first three centuries after our era, at Aphaca, at Hierapolis,
and at Antioch, where, in the time of Julian, even a Libanius
confessed that the great festival of the year consisted only in the
perpetration of all that was impure and shameless, and the
renunciation of every lingering spark of decency.[138]

A vivid conception of another world, and of the reality of a life
after death, especially if connected with a belief in future rewards
and punishments, might have done much, or at any rate something, to
counteract the effect upon morals and conduct of the degrading tenets
and practices connected with the Astarte worship; but, so far as
appears, the Phœnicians had a very faint and dim conception of the
life to come, and neither hoped for happiness, nor feared misery in
it. Their care for the preservation of their bodies after death, and
the provision which in some cases they are seen to have made for
them,[139] imply a belief that death was not the end of everything,
and a few vague expressions in inscriptions upon tombs point to a
similar conviction;[140] but the life of the other world seems to have
been regarded as something imperfect and precarious[141]--a sort of
shadowy existence in a gloomy /Sheôl/, where was neither pleasure nor
pain, neither suffering nor enjoyment, but only quietness and rest.
The thought of it did not occupy men's minds, or exercise any
perceptible influence over their conduct. It was a last home, whereto
all must go, acquiesced in, but neither hoped for nor dreaded. A
Phœnician's feelings on the subject were probably very much those
expressed by Job in his lament:--[142]

  "Why died I not from the womb? Why gave I not up the ghost at my
    birth?
  Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck?
  For now should I have lain still and been quiet;
  I should have slept, and then should I have been at rest;
  I should have been with the kings and councillors of the earth,
  Who rebuilt for themselves the cities that were desolate.
  I should have been with the princes that had much gold,
  And that filled their houses with silver . . .
  There they that are wicked cease from troubling,
  There they that are weary sink to rest;
  There the prisoners are in quiet together,
  And hear no longer the voice of the oppressor:
  There are both the great and small, and the servant is freed from
    his master.

Still their religion, such as it was, had a great hold upon the
Phœnicians. Parents gave to their children, almost always, religious
names, recognising each son and daughter as a gift from heaven, or
placing them under the special protection of the gods generally, or of
some single divinity. It was piety, an earnest but mistaken piety,
which so often caused the parent to sacrifice his child--the very
apple of his eye and delight of his heart--that so he might make
satisfaction for the sins which he felt in his inmost soul that he had
committed. It was piety that filled the temples with such throngs,
that brought for sacrifice so many victims, that made the worshipper
in every difficulty put up a vow to heaven, and caused the payment of
the vows in such extraordinary profusion. At Carthage alone there have
been found many hundreds of stones, each one of which records the
payment of a vow;[143] while other sites have furnished hundreds or
even thousands of /ex votos/--statues, busts, statuettes, figures of
animals, cylinders, seals, rings, bracelets, anklets, ear-rings,
necklaces, ornaments for the hair, vases, amphoræ, œnochoæ, pateræ,
jugs, cups, goblets, bowls, dishes, models of boats and chariots--
indicative of an almost unexampled devotion. A single chamber in the
treasury of Curium produced more than three hundred articles in silver
and silver-gilt;[144] the temple of Golgi yielded 228 votive
statues;[145] sites in Sardinia scarcely mentioned in antiquity have
sufficed to fill whole museums with statuettes, rings, and scarabs. If
the Phœnicians did not give evidence of the depth of their religious
feeling by erecting, like most nations, temples of vast size and
magnificence, still they left in numerous places unmistakable proof of
the reality of their devotion to the unseen powers by the
multiplicity, and in many cases the splendour,[146] of their votive
offerings.



CHAPTER XII

DRESS, ORNAMENTS, AND SOCIAL HABITS

  Dress of common men--Dress of men of the upper classes--Treatment
  of the hair and beard--Male ornaments--Supposed priestly costume--
  Ordinary dress of women--Arrangement of their hair--Female
  ornaments--Necklaces--Bracelets--Ear-rings--Ornaments for the hair
  --Toilet pins--Buckles--A Phœnician lady's toilet table--Freedom
  enjoyed by Phœnician women--Active habits of the men--Curious
  agate ornament--Use in furniture of bronze and ivory.

The dress of the Phœnician men, especially of those belonging to the
lower orders, consisted, for the most part, of a single close-fitting
tunic, which reached from the waist to a little above the knee.[1] The
material was probably either linen or cotton, and the simple garment
was perfectly plain and unornamented, like the common /shenti/ of the
Egyptians. On the head was generally worn a cap of one kind or
another, sometimes round, more often conical, occasionally shaped like
a helmet. The conical head-dresses seem to have often ended in a sort
of top-knot or button, which recalls the head-dress of a Chinese
Mandarin.

Where the men were of higher rank, the /shenti/ was ornamented. It was
patterned, and parted towards the two sides, while a richly adorned
lappet, terminating in uræi, fell down in front.[2] The girdle, from
which it depended, was also patterned, and the /shenti/ thus arranged
was sometimes a not inelegant garment. In addition to the /shenti/, it
was common among the upper classes to wear over the bust and shoulders
a close-fitting tunic with short sleeves,[3] like a modern "jersey;"
and sometimes two garments were worn, an inner robe descending to the
feet, and an outer blouse or shirt, with sleeves reaching to the
elbow.[4] Occasionally, instead of this outer blouse, the man of rank
has a mantle thrown over the left shoulder, which falls about him in
folds that are sufficiently graceful.[5] The conical cap with a top-
knot is, with persons of this class, the almost universal head-dress.

Great attention seems to have been paid to the hair and beard. Where
no cap is worn, the hair clings closely to the head in a wavy compact
mass, escaping however from below the wreath or diadem, which supplies
the place of a cap, in one or two rows of crisp, rounded curls.[6] The
beard has mostly a strong resemblance to that affected by the
Assyrians, and familiar to us from their sculptures. It is arranged in
three, four, or five rows of small tight curls,[7] and extends from
ear to ear around the cheeks and chin. Sometimes, however, in lieu of
the many rows, we find one row only, the beard falling in tresses,
which are curled at the extremity.[8] There is no indication of the
Phœnicians having cultivated mustachios.

For ornaments the male Phœnicians wore collars, which were sometimes
very elaborate, armlets, bracelets, and probably finger-rings. The
collars resembled those of the Egyptians, being arranged in three
rows, and falling far over the breast.[9] The armlets seem to have
been plain, consisting of a mere twist of metal, once, twice, or
thrice around the limb.[10] The royal armlets of Etyander, king of
Paphos, are single twists of gold, the ends of which only just
overlap: they are plain, except for the inscription, which reads
/Eteadoro to Papo basileos/, or "The property of Etyander, king of
Paphos."[11] Men's bracelets were similar in character. The finger-
rings were either of gold or silver, and generally set with a stone,
which bore a device, and which the wearer used as a seal.[12]

The most elaborate male costume which has come down to us is that of a
figure found at Golgi, and believed to represent a high priest of
Ashtoreth. The conical head-dress is divided into partitions by narrow
stripes, which, beginning at its lower edge, converge to a point at
top. This point is crowned by the representation of a calf's or bull's
head. The main garment is a long robe reaching from the neck to the
feet, "worn in much the same manner as the peplos on early Greek
female figures." Round the neck of the robe are two rows of stars
painted in red, probably meant to represent embroidery. A little below
the knee is another band of embroidery, from which the robe falls in
folds or pleats, which gather closely around the legs. Above the long
robe is worn a mantle, which covers the right arm and shoulder, and
thence hangs down below the right knee, passing also in many folds
from the shoulder across the breast, and thence, after a twist around
the left arm, falling down below the left knee. The treatment of the
hair is remarkable. Below the rim of the cap is the usual row of crisp
curls; but besides these, there depend from behind the ears on either
side of the neck three long tresses. The feet of the figure are naked.
The right hand holds a cup by its foot between the middle and fore-
fingers, while the left holds a dove with wings outspread.[13]

Women were, for the most part, draped very carefully from head to
foot. The nude figures which are found abundantly in the Phœnician
remains[14] are figures of goddesses, especially of Astarte, who were
considered not to need the ornament, or the concealment of dress.
Human female figures are in almost every case covered from the neck to
the feet, generally in garments with many folds, which, however, are
arranged very variously. Sometimes a single robe of the amplest
dimensions seems to envelop the whole form, which it completely
conceals with heavy folds of drapery.[15] The long petticoat is
sleeved, and gathered into a sinus below the breasts, about which it
hangs loosely. Sometimes, on the contrary, the petticoat is perfectly
plain, and has no folds.[16] Occasionally a second garment is worn
over the gown or robe, which covers the left shoulder and the lap,
descending to the knees, or somewhat lower.[17] The waist is generally
confined by a girdle, which is knotted in front.[18] There are a few
instances in which the feet are enclosed in sandals.[19]

The hair of women is sometimes concealed under a cap, but generally it
escapes from such confinement, and shows itself below the cap in great
rolls, or in wavy masses, which flow off right and left from a parting
over the middle of the forehead.[20] Tresses are worn occasionally:
these depend behind either ear in long loose curls, which fall upon
the shoulders.[21] Female heads are mostly covered with a loose hood,
or cap; but sometimes the hair is merely encircled by a band or bands,
above and below which it ripples freely.[22]

Phœnician women were greatly devoted to the use of personal ornaments.
It was probably from them that the Hebrew women of Isaiah's time
derived the "tinkling ornaments of the feet, the cauls, the round
tires like the moon, the chains, the bracelets, and the mufflers, the
bonnets and the ornaments of the legs, and the head-bands, and the
tablets, and the ear-rings, the rings and nose-jewels, the changeable
suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping
pins, the glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the
vails,"[23] which the prophet denounces so fiercely. The excavations
made on Phœnician sites have yielded in abundance necklaces, armlets,
bracelets, pendants to be worn as lockets, ear-rings, finger-rings,
ornaments for the hair, buckles or brooches, seals, buttons, and
various articles of the toilet such as women delight in.

Women wore, it appears, three or four necklaces at the same time, one
above the other.[24] A string of small beads or pearls would closely
encircle the neck just under the chin. Below, where the chest begins,
would lie a second string of larger beads, perhaps of gold, perhaps
only of glass, while further down, as the chest expands, would be rows
of still larger ornaments, pendants in glass, or crystal, or gold, or
agate modelled into the shape of acorns, or pomegranates, or lotus
flowers, or cones, or vases, and lying side by side to the number of
fifty or sixty. Several of the necklaces worn by the Cypriote ladies
have come down to us. One is composed of a row of one hundred and
three gold beads, alternately round and oval, to the oval ones of
which are attached pendants, also in gold, representing alternately
the blossom and bud of the lotus plant, except in one instance. The
central bead of all has as its pendant a human head and bust, modelled
in the Egyptian style, with the hair falling in lappets on either side
of the face, and with a broad collar upon the shoulders and the
breast.[25] Another consists of sixty-four gold beads, twenty-two of
which are of superior size to the rest, and of eighteen pendants,
shaped like the bud of a flower, and delicately chased.[26] There are
others where gold beads are intermixed with small carnelian and onyx
bugles, while the pendants are of gold, like the beads; or where gold
and rock-crystal beads alternate, and a single crystal vase hangs as
pendant in the middle; or where alternate carnelian and gold beads
have as pendant a carnelian cone, a symbol of Astarte.[27]
Occasionally the sole material used is glass. Necklaces have been
found composed entirely of long oval beads of blue or greenish-blue
glass; others where the colour of the beads is a dark olive;[28]
others again, where all the component parts are of glass, but the
colours and forms are greatly varied. In a glass necklace found at
Tharros in Sardinia, besides beads of various sizes and hues, there
are two long rough cylinders, four heads of animals, and a human head
as central ornament. "Taken separately, the various elements of which
this necklace is composed have little value; neither the heads of the
animals, nor the bearded human face, perhaps representing Bacchus, are
in good style; the cylinders and rounded beads which fill up the
intermediate spaces between the principal objects are of very poor
execution; but the mixture of whites, and greys, and yellows, and
greens, and blues produces a whole which is harmonious and gay."[29]

Perhaps the most elegant and tasteful necklace of all that have been
discovered is the one made of a thick solid gold cord, very soft and
elastic, which is figured on the page opposite.[30] At either
extremity is a cylinder of very fine granulated work, terminating in
one case in a lion's head of good execution, in the other surmounted
by a simple cap. The lion's mouth holds a ring, while the cap supports
a long hook, which seems to issue from a somewhat complicated knot,
entangled wherein is a single light rosette. "In this arrangement, in
the curves of the thin wire, which folds back upon itself again and
again, there is an air of ease, an apparent negligence, which is the
very perfection of technical skill."[31]

The bracelets worn by the Phœnician ladies were of many kinds, and
frequently of great beauty. Some were bands of plain solid gold,
without ornament of any kind, very heavy, weighing from 200 to 300
grammes each.[32] Others were open, and terminated at either extremity
in the head of an animal. One, found by General Di Cesnola at Curium
in Cyprus,[33] exhibited at the two ends heads of lions, which seemed
to threaten each other. The execution of the heads left nothing to be
desired. Some others, found in Phœnicia Proper, in a state of
extraordinary preservation, were of similar design, but, in the place
of lions' heads, exhibited the heads of bull, with very short
horns.[34] A third type aimed at greater variety, and showed the head
of a wild goat at one end, and that of a ram at the other.[35] In a
few instances, the animal representation appears at one extremity of
the bracelet only, as in a specimen from Camirus, whereof the
workmanship is unmistakably Phœnician, which has a lion's head at one
end, and at the other tapers off, like the tail of a serpent.[36]

A pair of bracelets in the British Museum, said to have come from
Tharros, consist of plain thin circlets of gold, with a ball of gold
in the middle. The ball is ornamented with spirals and projecting
knobs, which must have been uncomfortable to the wearer, but are said
not to be wanting in elegance.[37]

There are other Phœnician bracelets of an entirely different
character. These consist of broad flat bands, which fitted closely to
the wrist, and were fastened round it by means of a clasp. Two, now in
the Museum of New York, are bands of gold about an inch in width,
ornamented externally with rosettes, flowers, and other designs in
high relief, on which are visible in places the remains of a blue
enamel.[38] Another is composed of fifty-four large-ribbed gold beads,
soldered together by threes, and having for centre a gold medallion,
with a large onyx set in it, and with four gold pendants.[39] A third
bracelet of the kind, said to have been found at Tharros, consists of
six plates, united by hinges, and very delicately engraved with
patterns of a thoroughly Phœnician character, representing palms,
volutes, and flowers.[40]

But it is in their earrings that the Phœnician ladies were most
curious and most fanciful. They present to us, as MM. Perrot and
Chipiez note, "an astonishing variety."[41] Some, which must have been
very expensive, are composed of many distinct parts, connected with
each other by chains of an elegant pattern. One of the most beautiful
specimens was found by General Di Cesnola in Cyprus.[42] There is a
hook at top, by which it was suspended. Then follows a medallion,
where the workmanship is of singular delicacy. A rosette occupies the
centre; around it are a set of spirals, negligently arranged, and
enclosed within a chain-like band, outside of which is a double
beading. From the medallion depend by finely wrought chains five
objects. The central chain supports a human head, to which is attached
a conical vase, covered at top: on either side are two short chains,
terminating in rings, from which hang small nondescript pendants:
beyond are two longer chains, with small vases or bottles attached.
Another, found in Sardinia, is scarcely less complicated. The ring
which pierced the ear forms the handle of a kind of basket, which is
covered with lines of bead-work: below, attached by means of two
rings, is the model of a hawk with wings folded; below the hawk, again
attached by a couple of rings, is a vase of elegant shape, decorated
with small bosses, lozenges, and chevrons.[43] Other ear-rings have
been found similar in type to this, but simplified by the omission of
the bird, or of the basket.[44]

An entirely different type is that furnished by an ear-ring in the
Museum of New York brought from Cyprus, where the loop of the ornament
rises from a sort of horse-shoe, patterned with bosses and spirals,
and surrounded by a rough edging of knobs, standing at a little
distance one from another.[45] Other forms found also in Cyprus are
the ear-ring with the long pendant, which has been called "an
elongated pear,"[46] ornamented towards the lower end with small
blossoms of flowers, and terminating in a minute ball, which recalls
the "drops" that are still used by the jewellers of our day; the loop
which supports a /crux ansata/;[47] that which has attached to it a
small square box, or measure containing a heap of grain, thought to
represent wheat;[48] and those which support fruit of various
kinds.[49] An ear-ring of much delicacy consists of a twisted ring,
curved into a hook at one extremity, and at the other ending in the
head of a goat, with a ring attached to it, through which the hook
passes.[50] Another, rather curious than elegant, consists of a double
twist, ornamented with lozenges, and terminating in triangular points
finely granulated.[51]

Ornaments more or less resembling this last type of ear-ring, but
larger and coarser, have given rise to some controversy, having been
regarded by some as ear-rings, by others as fastenings for the dress,
and by a third set of critics as ornaments for the hair. They consist
of a double twist, sometimes ornamented at one end only, sometimes at
both. A lion's or a griffin's head crowns usually the principal end;
round the neck is a double or triple collar, and below this a rosette,
very carefully elaborated. In one instance two griffins show
themselves side by side, exhibiting their heads, their chests, their
wings, and their fore-paws or hands; between them is an ornament like
that which commonly surmounts Phœnician /stelæ/; and below this a most
beautiful rosette.[52] The fashioning shows that the back of the
ornament was not intended to be seen, and favours the view that it was
to be placed where a mass of hair would afford the necessary
concealment.

The Phœnician ladies seem also to have understood the use of hair-
pins, which were from two to three inches long, and had large heads,
ribbed longitudinally, and crowned with two smaller balls, one above
the other.[53] The material used was either gold or silver.

To fasten their dresses, the Phœnician ladies used /fibulæ/ or buckles
of a simple character. Brooches set with stones have not at present
been found on Phœnician sites; but in certain cases the fibulæ show a
moderate amount of ornament. Some have glass beads strung on the pin
that is inserted into the catch; others have the rounded portion
surmounted by the figure of a horse or of a bird.[54] Most fibulæ are
in bronze; but one, found in the treasury of Curium, and now in the
Museum of New York, was of gold.[55] This, however, was most probably
a votive offering.

It is impossible at present to reproduce the toilet table of a
Phœnician lady. We may be tolerably sure, however, that certain
indispensable articles would not be lacking. Circular mirrors, either
of polished metal, or of glass backed by a plate of tin or silver,
would undoubtedly have found their place on them, together with
various vessels for holding perfumes and ointments. A vase in rock
crystal, discovered at Curium, with a funnel and cover in gold, the
latter attached by a fine gold chain to one of its handles,[56] was
doubtless a fine lady's favourite smelling bottle. Various other
vessels in silver, of a small size,[57] as basins and bowls
beautifully chased, tiny jugs, alabasti, ladles, &c., had also the
appearance of belonging rather to the toilet table than to the plate-
basket. Some of the alabasti would contain /kohl/ or /stibium/, some
salves and ointments, others perhaps perfumed washes for the
complexion. Among the bronze objects found,[58] some may have been
merely ornaments, others stands for rings, bracelets, and the like.
One terra-cotta vase from Dali seems made for holding pigments,[59]
and raises the suspicion that Phœnician, or at any rate Cyprian,
beauties were not above heightening their charms by the application of
paint.

Women in Phœnicia seem to have enjoyed considerable freedom. They are
represented as banqueting in the company of men, sometimes sitting
with them on the same couch, sometimes reclining with them at the same
table.[60] Occasionally they delight their male companion by playing
upon the lyre or the double pipe,[61] while in certain instances they
are associated in bands of three, who perform on the lyre, the double
pipe, and the tambourine.[62] They take part in religious processions,
and present offerings to the deities.[63] The positions occupied in
history by Jezebel and Dido fall in with these indications, and imply
a greater approach to equality between the sexes in Phœnicia than in
Oriental communities generally.

The men were, for Orientals, unusually hardy and active. In only one
instance is there any appearance of the use of the parasol by a
Phœnician.[64] Sandals are infrequently worn; neck, chest, arms, and
legs are commonly naked. The rough life of seamen hardened the greater
number; others hunted the wild ox and the wild boar[65] in the marshy
plains of the coast tract, and in the umbrageous dells of Lebanon.
Even the lion may have been affronted in the great mountain, and if we
are unable to describe the method of its chase in Phœnicia, the reason
is that the Phœnician artists have, in their representations of lion
hunts, adopted almost exclusively Assyrian models.[66] The Phœnician
gift of facile imitation was a questionable advantage, since it led
the native artists continually to substitute for sketches at first
hand of scenes with which they were familiar, conventional renderings
of similar scenes as depicted by foreigners.

An ornament found in Cyprus, the intention of which is uncertain,
finds its proper place in the present chapter, though we cannot attach
it to any particular class of objects. It consists of a massive knob
of solid agate, with a cylinder of the same both above and below,
through which a rod, or bar, must have been intended to pass. Some
archæologists see in it the top of a sceptre;[67] others, the head of
a mace;[68] but there is nothing really to prove its use. We might
imagine it the adornment of a throne or chair of state, or the end of
a chariot pole, or a portion of the stem of a candelabrum. Antiquity
has furnished nothing similar with which to compare it; and we only
say of it, that, whatever was its purpose, so large and so beautiful a
mass of agate has scarcely been met with elsewhere.[69] The cutting is
such as to show very exquisitely the veining of the material.

Bronze objects in almost infinite variety have been found on Phœnician
sites,[70] but only a few of them can have been personal ornaments.
They comprise lamps, bowls, vases, jugs, cups, armlets, anklets,
daggers, dishes, a horse's bit, heads and feet of animals, statuettes,
mirrors, fibulæ, buttons, &c. Furniture would seem to have been
largely composed of bronze, which sometimes formed its entire fabric,
though generally confined to the ornamentation. Ivory was likewise
employed in considerable quantities in the manufacture of
furniture,[71] to which it was applied as an outer covering, or
veneer, either plain, or more generally carved with a pattern or with
figures. The "ivory house" of Ahab[72] was perhaps so called, not so
much from the application of the precious material to the doors and
walls, as from its employment in the furniture. There is every
probability that it was the construction of Phœnician artists.



CHAPTER XIII

PHŒNICIAN WRITING, LANGUAGE, AND LITERATURE

  The Phœnician alphabet--Its wide use--Its merits--Question of its
  origin--Its defects--Phœnician writing and language--Resemblance
  of the language to Hebrew--In the vocabulary--In the grammar--
  Points of difference between Phœnician and Hebrew--Scantiness of
  the literature--Phœnician history of Philo Byblius--Extracts--
  Periplus of Hanno--Phœnician epigraphic literature--Inscription of
  Esmunazar--Inscription of Tabnit--Inscription of Jehav-melek--
  Marseilles inscription--Short inscriptions on votive offerings and
  tombs--Range of Phœnician book-literature.

The Phœnician alphabet, like the Hebrew, consisted of twenty-two
characters, which had, it is probable, the same names with the Hebrew
letters,[1] and were nearly identical in form with the letters used
anciently by the entire Hebrew race. The most ancient inscription in
the character which has come down to us is probably that of Mesha,[2]
the Moabite king, which belongs to the ninth century before our era.
The next in antiquity, which is of any considerable length, is that
discovered recently in the aqueduct which brings the water into the
pool of Siloam,[3] which dates probably from the time of Hezekiah, ab.
B.C. 727-699. Some short epigraphs on Assyrian gems, tablets, and
cylinders belong apparently to about the same period. The series of
Phœnician and Cilician coins begins soon after this, and continues to
the time of the Roman supremacy in Western Asia. The soil of Phœnicia
Proper, and of the various countries where the Phœnicians established
settlements or factories, as Cyprus, Malta, Sicily, Sardinia, Southern
Gaul, Spain, and North Africa, has also yielded a large crop of
somewhat brief legends, the "inscription of Marseilles"[4] being the
most important of them. Finally there have been found within the last
few years, in Phœnicia itself, near Byblus and Sidon, the three most
valuable inscriptions of the entire series--those of Jehavmelek,
Esmunazar and Tabnit--which have enabled scholars to place the whole
subject on a scientific basis.

It is now clear that the same, or nearly the same, alphabet was in use
from a very early date over the greater part of Western Asia--in
Phœnicia, Moab, Judæa, Samaria, Lycia, Caria, Phrygia, &c.--that it
was adopted, with slight alterations only, by the Etruscans and the
Greeks, and that from them it was passed on to the nations of modern
Europe, and acquired a quasi-universality. The invention of this
alphabet was, by the general consent of antiquity, ascribed to the
Phœnicians;[5] and though, if their claim to priority of discovery be
disputed, it is impossible to prove it, their practical genius and
their position among the nations of the earth are strong subsidiary
arguments in support of the traditions.

The Phœnician alphabet, or the Syrian script, as some call it,[6] did
not obtain its general prevalence without possessing some peculiar
merits. Its primary merit was that of simplicity. The pictorial
systems of the Egyptians and the Hittites required a hand skilled in
drawing to express them; the cuneiform syllabaries of Babylonia,
Assyria, and Elam needed an extraordinary memory to grasp the almost
infinite variety in the arrangement of the wedges, and to distinguish
each group from all the rest; even the Cypriote syllabary was of
awkward and unnecessary extent, and was expressed by characters
needlessly complicated. The Phœnician inventor, whoever he was,
reduced letters to the smallest possible number, and expressed them by
the simplest possible forms. Casting aside the idea of a syllabary, he
reduced speech to its ultimate elements, and set apart a single sign
to represent each possible variety of articulation, or rather each
variety of which he was individually cognisant. How he fixed upon his
signs, it is difficult to say. According to some, he had recourse to
one or other of previously existing modes of expressing speech, and
merely simplified the characters which he found in use. But there are
two objections to this view. First, there is no known set of
characters from which the early Phœnician can be derived with any
plausability. Resemblances no doubt may be pointed out here and there,
but taking the alphabet as a whole, and comparing it with any other,
the differences will always be quite as numerous and quite as striking
as the similarities. For instance, the writer of the article on the
"Alphabet" in the "Encyclopædia Britannica" (1876) derives the
Phœnician letters from letters used in the Egyptian hieratic
writing,[7] but his own table shows a marked diversity in at least
eleven instances, a slight resemblance in seven or eight, a strong
resemblance in no more than two or three. Derivation from the Cypriote
forms has been suggested by some; but here again eight letters are
very different, if six or seven are similar. Recently, derivation from
the Hittite hieroglyphs has been advocated,[8] but the alleged
instances of resemblance touch nine characters only out of the twenty-
two. And real resemblance is confined to three or four. Secondly, no
theory of derivation accounts for the Phœnician names of their
letters, which designate objects quite different from those
represented by the Egyptian hieroglyphs, and equally different from
those represented by the Hittite letters. For instance, the Egyptian
/a/ is the ill-drawn figure of an eagle, the Phœnician /alef/ has the
signification of "ox;" the /b/ of the Egyptians is a hastily drawn
figure of a crane, the Phœnician /beth/ means "a house."

On the whole, it seems most probable that the Phœnicians began with
their own hieroglyphical system, selecting an object to represent the
initial sound of its name, and at first drawing that object, but that
they very soon followed the Egyptian idea of representing the original
drawing in a conventional way, by a few lines, straight or curved.
Their hieroglyphic alphabet which is extant is an alphabet in the
second stage, corresponding to the Egyptian hieratic, but not derived
from it. Having originally represented their /alef/ by an ox's head,
they found a way of sufficiently indicating the head by three lines
{...}, which marked the horns, the ears, and the face. Their /beth/
was a house in the tent form; their /gimel/ a camel, represented by
its head and neck; their /daleth/ a door, and so on. The object
intended is not always positively known; but, where it is known, there
is no difficulty in tracing the original picture in the later
conventional sign.

The Phœnician alphabet was not without its defects. The most
remarkable of these was the absence of any characters expressive of
vowel sounds. The Phœnician letters are, all of them, consonants; and
the reader is expected to supply the vowel sounds for himself. There
was not even any system of pointing, so far as we know, whereby, as in
Hebrew and Arabic, the proper sounds were supplied. Again, several
letters were made to serve for two sounds, as /beth/ for both /b/ and
/v/, /pe/ for both /p/ and /f/, /shin/ for both /s/ and /sh/, and
/tau/ for both /t/ and /th/. There were no forms corresponding to the
sounds /j/ or /w/. On the other hand, there was in the alphabet a
certain amount of redundancy. /Tsade/ is superfluous, since it
represents, not a simple elemental sound, but a combination of two
sounds, /t/ and /s/. Hence the Greeks omitted it, as did also the
Oscans and the Romans. There is redundancy in the two forms for /k/,
namely /kaph/ and /koph/; in the two for /t/, namely /teth/ and /tau/;
and in the two for /s/, namely /samech/ and /shin/. But no alphabet is
without some imperfections, either in the way of excess or defect; and
perhaps we ought to be more surprised that the Phœnician alphabet has
not more faults than that it falls so far short of perfection as it
does.

The writing of the Phœnicians was, like that of the majority of the
Semitic nations, from right to left. The reverse order was entirely
unknown to them, whether employed freely as an alternative, as in
Egypt, or confined, as in Greece, to the alternate lines. The words
were, as a general rule, undivided, and even in some instances were
carried over the end of one line into the beginning of another. Still,
there are examples where a sign of separation occurs between each word
and the next;[9] and the general rule is, that the words do not run
over the line. In the later inscriptions they are divided, according
to the modern fashion, by a blank space;[10] but there seems to have
been an earlier practice of dividing them by small triangles or by
dots.

The language of the Phœnicians was very close indeed to the Hebrew,
both as regards roots and as regards grammatical forms. The number of
known words is small, since not only are the inscriptions few and
scanty, but they treat so much of the same matters, and run so nearly
in the same form, that, for the most part, the later ones contain
nothing new but the proper names. Still they make known to us a
certain number of words in common use, and these are almost always
either identical with the Hebrew forms, or very slightly different
from them, as the following table will demonstrate:--

  Phœnician                 Hebrew                  English
  Ab {...}                  {...}                   father
  Aben {...}                {...}                   stone
  Adon {...}                {...}                   lord
  Adam {...}                {...}                   man
  Aleph {...}               {...}                   an ox
  Akh {...}                 {...}                   brother
  Akhar {...}               {...}                   after
  Am {...}                  {...}                   mother
  Anak {...}                {...}                   I
  Arets {...}               {...}                   earth, land
  Ash {...}                 {...}                   who, which
  Barak {...}               {...}                   to bless
  Bath {...}                {...}                   daughter
  Ben {...}                 {...}                   son
  Benben {...}              {...}                   grandson
  Beth {...}                {...}                   house, temple
  Ba'al {...}               {...}                   lord, citizen
  Ba'alat {...}             {...}                   lady, mistress
  Barzil {...}              {...}                   iron
  Dagan {...}               {...}                   corn
  Deber {...}               {...}                   to speak, say
  Daleth {...}              {...}                   door
  Zan {...}                 {...}                   this
  Za {...}                  {...}                   this
  Zereng {...}              {...}                   seed, race
  Har {...}                 {...}                   mountain
  Han {...}                 {...}                   grace, favour
  Haresh {...}              {...}                   carpenter
  Yom {...}                 {...}                   day, also sea
  Yitten {...}              {...}                   to give
  Ish {...}                 {...}                   man
  Ishath {...}              {...}                   woman, wife
  Kadesh {...}              {...}                   holy
  Kol {...}                 {...}                   every, all
  Kol {...}                 {...}                   voice
  Kohen {...}               {...}                   priest
  Kohenath {...}            {...}                   priestess
  Kara {...}                {...}                   to call
  Lechem {...}              {...}                   bread
  Makom {...}               {...}                   a place
  Makar {...}               {...}                   a seller
  Malakath {...}            {...}                   work
  Melek {...}               {...}                   king
  Mizbach {...}             {...}                   altar
  Na'ar {...}               {...}                   boy, servant
  Nehusht {...}             {...}                   brass
  Nephesh {...}             {...}                   soul
  Nadar {...}               {...}                   to vow
  'Abd {...}                {...}                   slave, servant
  'Am {...}                 {...}                   people
  'Ain {...}                {...}                   eye, fountain
  'Ath {...}                {...}                   time
  'Olam {...}               {...}                   eternity
  Pen {...}                 {...}                   face
  Per {...}                 {...}                   fruit
  Pathach {...}             {...}                   door
  Rab {...}                 {...}                   lord, chief
  Rabbath {...}             {...}                   lady
  Rav {...}                 {...}                   rain, irrigation
  Rach {...}                {...}                   spirit
  Rapha {...}               {...}                   physician
  Shamam {...}              {...}                   the heavens
  Shemesh {...}             {...}                   the sun
  Shamang {...}             {...}                   to hear
  Shenath {...}             {...}                   a year
  Shad {...}                {...}                   a field
  Sha'ar {...}              {...}                   a gate
  Shalom {...}              {...}                   peace
  Shem {...}                {...}                   a name
  Shaphat {...}             {...}                   a judge
  Sopher {...}              {...}                   a scribe
  Sakar {...}               {...}                   memory
  Sar {...}                 {...}                   a prince
  Tsedek {...}              {...}                   just

The Phœnician numerals, so far as they are known to us, are identical,
or nearly identical, with the Hebrew. /'Ahad/ {...} is "one;" /shen/
{...}, "two;" /shalish/ {...}, "three;" /arba/ {...}, "four;" /hamesh/
{...}, "five;" /eshman/ {...}, "eight;" /'eser/ {...}, "ten;" and so
on. Numbers were, however, by the Phœnicians ordinarily expressed by
signs, not words--the units by perpendicular lines: | for "one," ||
for "two," ||| for "three," and the like; the tens by horizontal ones,
either simple, {...}, or hooked at the right end, {...}; twenty by a
sign resembling a written capital /n/, {...}; one hundred by a sign
still more complicated, {...}.

The grammatical inflexions, the particles, the pronouns, and the
prepositions are also mostly identical. The definite article is
expressed, as in Hebrew, by /h/ prefixed. Plurals are formed by the
addition of /m/ or /th/. The prefix /eth/ {...} marks the accusative.
There is a /niphal/ conjugation, formed by prefixing /n/. The full
personal pronouns are /anak/ {...} = "I" (compare Heb. {...}); /hu/
{...}, "he" (compare Heb. {...}); /hi/ {...}, "she" (compare Heb.
{...}); /anachnu/, "we" (compare Heb. {...}); and the suffixed
pronouns are /-i/, "me, my;" /-ka/, "thee, thy;" /-h/ (pronounced as
/-oh/ or /-o/), "him, his" (compare Heb. {...}); /-n/ "our," perhaps
pronounced /nu/; and /-m/, "their, them," pronounced /om/ or /um/
(compare Heb. {...}). /Vau/ prefixed means "and;" /beth/ prefixed
"in;" /kaph/ prefixed "as;" /lamed/ prefixed "of" or "to;" /'al/ {...}
is "over;" /ki/ {...} "because;" /im/ {...}, "if;" /hazah/, /zath/, or
/za/ {...}, "this" (compare Heb. {...}); and /ash/ {...}, "who, which"
(compare Heb. {...}). /Al/ {...} and /lo/ {...} are the negatives
(compare Heb. {...}). The redundant use of the personal pronoun with
the relative is common.

Still, Phœnician is not mere Hebrew; it has its own genius, its
idioms, its characteristics. The definite article, so constantly
recurring in Hebrew, is in Phœnician, comparatively speaking, rare.
The quiescent letters, which in Hebrew ordinarily accompany the long
vowels, are in Phœnician for the most part absent. The employment of
the participle for the definite tenses of the verb is much more common
in Phœnician than in Hebrew, and the Hebrew prefix /m/ is wanting. The
ordinary termination of feminine singular nouns is /-th/, not /-h/.
Peculiar forms occur, as /ash/ for /asher/, /'amath/ for /'am/
("people"), /zan/ for /zah/ ("this"), &c. Words which in Hebrew are
confined to poetry pass among the Phœnicians into ordinary use, as
/pha'al/ ({...}, Heb. {...}), "to make," which replaces the Hebrew
{...}.[11]

"It is strange," says M. Renan, "that the people to which all
antiquity attributes the invention of writing, and which has, beyond
all doubted, transmitted it to the entire civilised world, has
scarcely left us any literature."[12] Certainly it is difficult to
give the name of literature either to the fragments of so-called
Phœnician works preserved to us in Greek translations, or to the
epigraphic remains of actual Phœnician writing which have come down to
our day. The works are two, and two only, viz. the pretended
"Phœnician History" of Sanchoniathon, and the "Periplus" of Hanno. Of
the former, it is perhaps sufficient to say that we have no evidence
of its genuineness. Philo of Byblus, who pretends that he translated
it from a Phœnician original, though possibly he had Phœnician blood
in his veins, was a Greek in language, in temperament, and in tone of
thought, and belonged to the Greece which is characterised by Juvenal
as "Græcia mendax." It is impossible to believe that the Euemerism in
which he indulges, and which was evidently the motive of his work,
sprang from the brain of Sanchoniathon nine hundred years before
Euemerus existed. One is tempted to suspect that Sanchoniathan himself
was a myth--an "idol of the cave," evolved out of the inner
consciousness of Philo. Philo had a certain knowledge of the Phœnician
language, and of the Phœnician religious system, but not more than he
might have gained by personal communication with the priests of Byblus
and Aphaca, who maintained the old worship in, and long after, his
day. It is not clear that he drew his statements from any ancient
authorities, or from books at all. So far as the extant fragments go,
a smattering of the language, a very moderate acquaintance with the
religion, and a little imagination might readily have produced them.

A few extracts from the remains must be given to justify this
judgement:--"The beginning of all things," Philo says,[13] "was a dark
and stormy air, or a dark air and a turbid chaos, resembling Erebus;
and these were at first unbounded, and for a long series of ages had
no limit. But after a time this wind became enamoured of its own first
principles, and an intimate union took place between them, a
connection which was called Desire {pothos}: and this was the
beginning of the creation of all things. But it (i.e. the Desire) had
no consciousness of its own creation: however, from its embrace with
the wind was generated Môt, which some call watery slime, and others
putrescence of watery secretion. And from this sprang all the seed of
creation, and the generation of the universe. And first there were
certain animals without sensation, from which intelligent animals were
produced, and these were called 'Zopher-Sêmin,' i.e. 'beholders of the
heavens;' and they were made in the shape of an egg, and from Môt
shone forth the sun, and the moon, and the lesser and the greater
stars. And when the air began to send forth light, by the
conflagration of land and sea, winds were produced, and clouds, and
very great downpours, and effusions of the heavenly waters. And when
these were thus separated, and carried, through the heat of the sun,
out of their proper places, and all met again in the air, and came
into collision, there ensued thunderings and lightnings; and through
the rattle of the thunder, the intelligent animals, above mentioned,
were woke up, and, startled by the noise, began to move about both in
the sea and on the land, alike such as were male and such as were
female. All these things were found in the cosmogony of Taaut (Thoth),
and in his Commentaries, and were drawn from his conjectures, and from
the proofs which his intellect discovered, and which he made clear to
us."

Again, "From the wind, Colpia, and his wife Bahu (Heb. {...}), which
is by interpretation 'Night,' were born Æon and Protogonus, mortal men
so named; of whom one, viz. Æon, discovered that life might be
sustained by the fruits of trees. Their immediate descendants were
called Genos and Genea, who lived in Phœnicia, and in time of drought
stretched forth their hands to heaven towards the sun; for him they
regarded as the sole Lord of Heaven, and called him Baal-samin, which
means 'Lord of Heaven' in the Phœnician tongue, and is equivalent to
Zeus in Greek. And from Genos, son of Æon and Protogonus, were
begotten mortal children, called Phôs, and Pyr, and Phlox (i.e. Light,
Fire, and Flame). These persons invented the method of producing fire
by rubbing two pieces of wood together, and taught men to employ it.
They begat sons of surprising size and stature, whose names were given
to the mountains whereof they had obtained possession, viz. Casius,
and Libanus, and Antilibanus, and Brathy. From them were produced
Memrumus and Hypsuranius, who took their names from their mothers,
women in those days yielding themselves without shame to any man whom
they happened to meet. Hypsuranius lived at Tyre, and invented the art
of building huts with reeds and rushes and the papyrus plant. He
quarrelled with his brother, Usôus, who was the first to make clothing
for the body out of the skins of the wild beasts which he slew. On one
occasion, when there was a great storm of rain and wind, the trees in
the neighbourhood of Tyre so rubbed against each other that they took
fire, and the whole forest was burnt; whereupon Usôus took a tree, and
having cleared it of its boughs, was the first to venture on the sea
in a boat. He also consecrated two pillars to Fire and Wind, and
worshipped them, and poured upon them the blood of the animals which
he took by hunting. And when the two brothers were dead, those who
remained alive consecrated rods to their memory, and continued to
worship the pillars, and to hold a festival in their honour year by
year."[14]

Once more--"It was the custom among the ancients, in times of great
calamity and danger, for the rulers of the city or nation to avert the
ruin of all by sacrificing to the avenging deities the best beloved of
their children as the price of redemption; and such as were thus
devoted were offered with mystic ceremonies. Kronus, therefore, who
was called El by the Phœnicians, and who, after his death, was deified
and attached to the planet which bears his name, having an only son by
a nymph of the country, who was called Anobret, took his son, whose
name was Ieoud, which means 'only son' in Phœnician, and when a great
danger from war impended over the land, adorned him with the ensigns
of royalty, and, having prepared an altar for the purpose, voluntarily
sacrificed him."[15]

It will be seen from these extracts that the literary value of Philo's
work was exceedingly small. His style is complicated and confused; his
matter, for the most part, worthless, and his mixture of Greek,
Phœnician, and Egyptian etymologies absurd. If we were bound to
believe that he translated a real Phœnician original, and that that
original was a fair specimen of Phœnician literary talent, the only
conclusion to which we could come would be, that the literature of the
nation was beneath contempt.

But the "Periplus" of Hanno will lead us to modify this judgment. It
is so short a work that we venture to give it entire from the
translation of Falconer,[16] with a few obvious corrections.

  The voyage of Hanno, King of the Carthaginians, round the parts of
  Libya beyond the Pillars of Hercules, which he deposited in the
  Temple of Kronos.

"It was decreed by the Carthaginians that Hanno should undertake a
voyage beyond the Pillars of Hercules, and there found Liby-Phœnician
cities. He sailed accordingly with sixty ships of fifty oars each, and
a body of men and women, to the number of thirty thousand, and
provisions, and other necessaries.

"When we had weighed anchor, and passed the Pillars, and sailed beyond
them for two days, we founded the first city, which we named
Thymiaterium. Below it lay an extensive plain. Proceeding thence
towards the west, we came to Soloeis, a promontory of Libya thickly
covered with trees, where we erected a temple to Neptune (Poseidon),
and again proceeded for the space of half a day towards the east,
until we arrived at a lake lying not far from the sea, and filled with
abundance of large reeds. Here elephants and a great number of other
wild animals were feeding.

"Having passed the lake about a day's sail, we founded cities near the
sea, called Caricon-Teichos, and Gytta, and Acra, and Melitta, and
Arambys. Thence we came to the great river Lixus, which flows from
Libya. On its banks the Lixitæ, a wandering tribe, were feeding
flocks, amongst whom we continued some time on friendly terms. Beyond
the Lixitæ dwelt the inhospitable Ethiopians, who pasture a wild
country intersected by large mountains, from which they say the river
Lixus flows. In the neighbourhood of the mountains lived the
Troglodytes, men of various appearances, whom the Lixitæ described as
swifter in running than horses. Having procured interpreters from
them, we coasted along a desert country towards the south for two
days; and thence again proceeded towards the east the course of a day.
Here we found in the recess of a certain bay a small island, having a
circuit of five stadia, where we settled a colony, and called it
Cerne. We judged from our voyage that this place lay in a direct line
with Carthage; for the length of our voyage from Carthage to the
Pillars was equal to that from the Pillars to Cerne. We then came to a
cape, which we reached by sailing up a large river called Chrete. The
lake had three islands larger than Cerne; from which, proceeding a
day's sail, we came to the extremity of the lake. This was overhung by
huge mountains, inhabited by savage men, clothed in skins of wild
beasts, who drove us away by throwing stones, and hindered us from
landing. Sailing thence, we came to another river, that was deep and
broad, and full of crocodiles and river horses (hippopotami), whence
returning back, we came again to Cerne. Thence we sailed towards the
south for twelve days, coasting along the shore, the whole of which is
inhabited by Ethiopians, who would not wait our approach, but fled
from us. Their language was unintelligible, even to the Lixitæ who
were with us. On the last day we approached some large mountains
covered with trees, the wood of which was sweet-scented and
variegated. Having sailed by these mountains for two days, we came to
an immense opening of the sea; on each side of which, towards the
continent, was a plain; from which we saw by night fire arising at
intervals, either more or less.

"Having taken in water there, we sailed forward during five days near
the land, until we came to a large bay, which our interpreter informed
us was called 'the Western Horn.' In this was a large island, and in
the island a salt-water lake, and in this another island, where, when
we had landed, we could discover nothing in the daytime except trees;
but in the night we saw many fires burning, and heard the sound of
pipes, cymbals, drums, and confused shouting. We were then afraid, and
our diviners ordered us to abandon the island. Sailing quickly away
thence, we passed by a country burning with fires and perfumes; and
streams of fire supplied thence fell into the sea. The country was
untraversable on account of the heat. So we sailed away quickly from
there also, being much terrified; and, passing on for four days, we
observed at night a country full of flames. In the middle was a lofty
fire, larger than the rest, which seemed to touch the stars. When day
came, we discovered it to be a huge hill, called 'the Chariot of the
Gods.' On the third day after our departure thence, after sailing by
streams of fire, we arrived at a bay, called 'the Southern Horn;' at
the bottom of which lay an island like the former one, having a lake,
and in the lake another island full of savage people, far the greater
part of whom were women, whose bodies were hairy, and whom our
interpreters called 'gorillæ.' Though we pursued the men, we could not
catch any of them; but all escaped us, climbing over the precipices,
and defending themselves with stones. Three women were, however,
taken; but they attacked their conductors with their teeth and nails,
and could not be prevailed upon to accompany us. So we killed them,
and flayed them, and brought their skins with us to Carthage. We did
not sail further on, our provisions failing us."

The style of this short work, though exceedingly simple and
inartificial, is not without its merits. It has the directness, the
perspicuity, and the liveliness of Cæsar's Commentaries or of the Duke
of Wellington's Despatches. Montesquieu[17] says of it:--"Hanno's
Voyage was written by the very man who performed it. His recital is
not mingled with ostentation. Great commanders write their actions
with simplicity, because they receive more honour from facts than
words." If we may take the work as a specimen of the accounts which
Phœnician explorers commonly gave of their travels in unknown regions,
we must regard them as having set a pattern which modern travellers
would do well to follow. Hanno gives us facts, not speculations--the
things which he has observed, not those of which he has dreamt; and he
delivers his facts in the fewest possible words, and in the plainest
possible way. He does not cultivate flowers of rhetoric; he does not
unduly spin out his narrative. It is plain that he is especially bent
on making his meaning clear, and he succeeds in doing so.

The epigraphic literature of the Phœnicians, which M. Renan considers
to supply fairly well the almost complete loss of their books,[18]
scarcely deserves to be so highly rated. It consists at present of
five or six moderately long, and some hundreds of exceedingly short,
inscriptions; the longer ones being, all of them, inscribed on stones,
the shorter on stones, vases, pateræ, gems, coins, and the like. The
longest of all is that engraved on the sarcophagus of Esmunazar, king
of Sidon, discovered near the modern Saida in the year 1855, and now
in the museum of the Louvre. This has a length of twenty-two long
lines, and contains 298 words.[19] It is fairly legible throughout;
and the sense is, for the most part, fairly well ascertained, though
the meaning of some passages remains still more or less doubtful. The
following is the translation of M. Renan:--

"In the month of Bul (October), in the fourteenth year of the reign of
King Esmunazar, king of the Sidonians, son of King Tabnit, king of the
Sidonians, King Esmunazar, king of the Sidonians, spake, saying--I am
snatched away before my time, the child of a few days, the orphan son
of a widow; and lo! I am lying in this coffin, and in this tomb, in
the place which I have built. I adjure every royal personage and every
man whatsoever, that they open not this my chamber, and seek not for
treasures there, since there are here no treasures, and that they
remove not the coffin from my chamber, nor build over this my chamber
any other funeral chamber. Even if men speak to thee, listen not to
their words; since every royal personage and every other man who shall
open this funeral chamber, or remove the coffin from this my chamber,
or build anything over this chamber--may they have no funeral chamber
with the departed, nor be buried in tombs, nor have any son or
descendant to succeed to their place; but may the Holy Gods deliver
them into the hand of a mighty king who shall reign over them, and
destroy the royal personage or the man who shall open this my funeral
chamber, or remove this coffin, together with the offspring of the
royal personage or other man, and let them not have either root below,
or any fruit above, or glory among such as live beneath the sun. Since
I am snatched away before my time, the child of a few days, the orphan
son of a widow, even I.

"For I am Esmunazar, king of the Sidonians, the son of King Tabnit,
king of the Sidonians, and the grandson of Esmunazar, king of the
Sidonians, and my mother is Am-Ashtoreth, priestess of our lady
Ashtoreth, the queen, the daughter of King Esmunazar, king of the
Sidonians--and it is we who have built the temples of the gods, the
temple of Ashtoreth in Sidon on the shore of the sea, and have placed
Ashtoreth in her temple to glorify her; and we too have built the
temple of Esmun, and set the sacred grove, En Yidlal, in the mountain,
and made him (Esmun) dwell there to glorify him; and it is we who have
built temples to the [other] deities of the Sidonians, in Sidon on the
shore of the sea, as the temple of Baal-Sidon, and the temple of
Asthoreth, who bears the name of Baal. And for this cause has the Lord
of Kings given us Dor and Joppa, and the fertile cornlands which are
in the plains of Sharon, as a reward for the great things which I have
done, and added them to the boundaries of the land, that they may
belong to the Sidonians for ever. I adjure every royal personage, and
every man whatsoever, that they open not this my chamber, nor empty my
chamber, nor build aught over this my chamber, nor remove the coffin
from this my chamber, lest the Holy Gods deliver them up, and destroy
the royal personage, or the men [who shall do so], and their offspring
for ever."[20]

The inscription on the tomb of Tabnit, Esmunazar's father, found near
Beyrout in 1886, is shorter, but nearly to the same effect. It has
been thus translated:--"I, Tabnit, priest of Ashtoreth, and king of
Sidon, lying in this tomb, say--I adjure every man, when thou shalt
come upon this sepulchre, open not my chamber, and trouble me not, for
there is not with me aught of silver, nor is there with me aught of
gold, there is not with me anything whatever of spoil, but only I
myself who lie in this sepulchre. Open not my chamber, and trouble me
not; for it would be an abomination in the sight of Ashtoreth to do
such an act. And if thou shouldest open my chamber, and trouble me,
mayest thou have no posterity all thy life under the sun, and no
resting-place with the departed."[21]

A stelé of a Byblian king, Jehavmelek, probably somewhat more ancient
than these,[22] bears an inscription of a different kind, since it is
attached to a votive offering and not to a sepulchre. The king
represents himself in a bas-relief as making an offering to Beltis or
Ashtoreth, and then appends an epigraph, which runs to fifteen long
lines,[23] and is to the following effect:--"I am Jehavmelek, king of
Gebal, the son of Jahar-baal, and the grandson of Adom-melek, king of
Gebal, whom lady Beltis of Gebal has made king of Gebal; and I invoke
my lady Beltis of Gebal, because she has heard my voice. And I have
made for my lady Beltis of Gebal the brazen altar which is in this
temple, and the golden carving which is in front of this my carving,
and the uræus of gold which is in the middle of the stone over the
golden carving. And I have made this portico, with its columns, and
the capitals that are upon the columns, and the roof of the temple
also, I, Jehavmelek, king of Gebal, have made for my lady Beltis of
Gebal, because, whenever I have invoked my lady Beltis of Gebal, she
has heard my voice, and been good to me. May Beltis of Gebal bless
Jehavmelek, king of Gebal, and grant him life, and prolong his days
and his years over Gebal, because he is a just king; and may the lady
Beltis of Gebal obtain him favour in the sight of the Gods, and in the
sight of the people of foreign lands, for ever! Every royal personage
and every other man who shall make additions to this altar, or to this
golden carving, or to this portico, I, Jehavmelek, king of Gebal, set
may face against him who shall so do, and I pray my lady Beltis of
Gebal to destroy that man, whoever he be, and his seed after him."[24]

The inscription of Marseilles, if it had been entire, would have been
as valuable and interesting as any of these; but, unfortunately, its
twenty-one lines are in every case incomplete, being broken off, or
else illegible, towards the left. It appears to have been a decree
emanating from the authorities of Carthage, and prescribing the amount
of the payments to be made in connection with the sacrifices and
officials of a temple of Baal which may have existed either at
Marseilles or at Carthage itself. To translate it is impossible
without a vast amount of conjecture; but M. Renan's version[25] seems
to deserve a place in the present collection.

INSCRIPTION OF MARSEILLES

"The temple of Baal . . . Account of the payments fixed by those set
over the payments, in the time of our lords, Halats-Baal, the Suffes,
the son of Abd-Tanith, the son of Abd-Esmun, and of Halats-Baal, the
Suffes, the son of Abd-Esmun, the son of Halts-Baal, and of their
colleagues:--For an ox, whether as burnt sacrifice, or expiatory
offering, or thank offering, to the priests [shall be given] ten
[shekels] of silver on account of each; and, if it be a burnt
sacrifice, they shall have besides this payment three hundred weight
of the flesh; and if the sacrifice be expiatory, [they shall have] the
fat and the additions, and the offerer of the sacrifice shall have the
skin, and the entrails, and the feet, and the rest of the flesh. For a
calf without horns and entire, or for a ram, whether as burnt
sacrifice, or expiatory offering, or thank offering, to the priests
[shall be given] five [shekels] of silver on account of each; and if
it be a burnt sacrifice, they shall have, besides this payment, a
hundred weight and a half of the flesh; and if the sacrifice be
expiatory, they shall have the fat and the additions, and the skin,
and entrails, and feet, and the rest of the flesh shall be given to
the offerer of the sacrifice. For a he-goat, or a she-goat, whether as
a burnt sacrifice, or expiatory offering, or thank offering, to the
priests [shall be given] one [shekel] and two /zers/ of silver on
account of each; and if it be an expiatory sacrifice, they shall have,
besides this payment, the fat and the additions; and the skin, and
entrails, and feet, and the rest of the flesh shall be given to the
offerer of the sacrifice. For a sheep, or a kid, or a fawn (?),
whether as burnt sacrifice, or expiatory offering, or thank offering,
to the priests [shall be given] three-fourths of a shekel of silver
and . . . /zers/, on account of each; and if it be an expiatory
sacrifice, they shall have, besides this payment, the fat and the
additions; and the skin, and the entrails, and the feet, and the rest
of the flesh [shall be given] to the offerer of the sacrifice. For a
bird, domestic or wild, whether as thank offering, or for augury, or
for divination, to the priests [shall be given] three-fourths of a
shekel of silver and two /zers/ on account of each, and the flesh
shall be for the offerer of the sacrifice. For a bird, or for the holy
first-fruits, or for the offering of a cake, or for an offering of
oil, to the priests [shall be given] ten /zers/ of silver on account
of each, and . . . In every expiatory sacrifice that shall be offered
before the deities, to the priests [shall be given] the fat and the
additions, and in the sacrifice of . . . For a meat offering, or for
milk, or for fat, or for any sacrifice which any man shall offer as an
oblation, to the priests [there shall be given] . . . For every
offering that a man shall offer who is poor in sheep, or poor in
birds, [there shall be given] to the priests nothing at all. Every
native, and every inhabitant, and every feaster at the table of the
gods, and all the men who sacrifice . . . those men shall make a
payment for every sacrifice, according to that which is prescribed in
[this] writing . . . Every payment which is not prescribed in this
tablet shall be made proportionally to the rate fixed by those set
over the payments in the time of our lords, Halats-Baal, the son of
Abd-Tanith, and Halats-Baal, the son of Abd-Esmun, and their
colleagues. Every priest who takes a payment beyond the amount
prescribed in this tablet shall be fined . . . And every offerer of a
sacrifice who shall not pay [the amount] prescribed, beyond the
payment which [is here fixed, he shall pay] . . ."

Of the shorter inscriptions of the Phœnicians, by far the greater
number were attached either to votive offerings or to tombs. Some
hundreds have been found of both classes, but they are almost wholly
without literary merit, being bald and jejune in the extreme, and
presenting little variety. The depositor of a votive offering usually
begins by mentioning the name and title, or titles, of the deity to
whom he dedicates it. Then he appends his own name, with the names of
his father and grandfather. Occasionally, but rarely, he describes his
offering, and states the year in which it was set up. Finally, he
asks the deity to bless him. The following are examples:--

INSCRIPTION OF UM-EL-AWAMID

"To the lord Baal-Shamaïm, [the vow] which was vowed by Abdelim, son
of Mattan, son of Abdelim, son of Baal-Shomar, of the district of
Laodicea. This gateway and doors did I make in fulfilment of it. I
built it in the 180th year of the Lord of Kings, and in the 143rd year
of the people of Tyre, that it might be to me a memorial and for a
good name beneath the feet of my lord, Baal-Shamaïm, for ever. May he
bless me!"[26]

INSCRIPTION ON A CIPPUS FROM CARTHAGE

"To the lady Tanith, and to our master, the lord Baal-Hammon; the
offerer is Abd-Melkarth, the Suffes, son of Abd-Melkarth, son of
Hanno."[27]

INSCRIPTION ON A CIPPUS FOUND IN MALTA

"To our lord Melkarth, the lord of Tyre. The offerer is thy servant,
Abd-Osiri, and my brother, Osiri-Shomar, both [of us] sons of Osiri-
Shomar, the son of Abd-Osiri. In hearing their voice, may he bless
them."[28]

INSCRIPTION ON A MARBLE ALTAR, BROUGHT FROM LARNAKA

"On the sixth day of the month Bul, in the twenty-first year of King
Pumi-yitten, king of Citium and Idalium, and Tamasus, son of King
Melek-yitten, king of Citium and Idalium, this altar and these two
lions were given by Bodo, priest of Reseph-hets, son of Yakun-shalam,
son of Esmunadon, to his lord Reseph-hets. May he bless [him]."[29]

INSCRIPTION ON A MARBLE TABLET FOUND IN CYPRUS

"On the seventh day of the month . . . in the thirty-first year of the
Lord of Kings, Ptolemæus, son of Ptolemæus . . . which was the fifty-
seventh year of the Citians, when Amarat-Osiri, daughter of . . . son
of Abd-Susim, of Gad'ath, was /canephora/ of Asinoë Philadelphus,
these statues were set up by Bathshalun, daughter of Maryichai, son of
Esmunadon, to the memory of his grandsons, Esmunadon, Shallum, and
Abd-Reseph, the three sons of Maryichai, son of Esmunadon, according
to the vow which their father, Maryichai, vowed, when he was still
alive, to their lord, Reseph-Mikal. May he bless them!"[30]

There is a little more variety in the inscriptions on tombstones. The
great majority, indeed, are extremely curt and dry, containing
scarcely anything beyond the name of the person who is buried in the
tomb, or that together with the name of the person by whom the
monument is erected; e.g. "To Athad, the daughter of Abd-Esmun, the
Suffes, and wife of Ger-Melkarth, the son of Ben-hodesh, the son of
Esmunazar"[31]; or "This monument I, Menahem, grandson of Abd-Esmun,
have erected to my father, Abd-Shamash, son of Abd-Esmun"[32]; or "I,
Abd-Osiri, the son of Abd-Susim, the son of Hur, have erected this
monument, while I am still alive, to myself, and to my wife, Ammat-
Ashtoreth, daughter of Taam, son of Abd-melek, [and have placed it]
over the chamber of my tomb, in perpetuity."[33] But, occasionally, we
get a glimpse, beyond the mere dry facts, into the region of thought;
as where the erector of a monument appends to the name of one, whom we
may suppose to have been a miser, the remark, that "the reward of him
who heaps up riches is contempt;"[34] or where one who entertains the
hope that his friend is happier in another world than he was upon
earth, thus expresses himself--"In memory of Esmun. After rain, the
sun shines forth;"[35] or, again, where domestic affection shows
itself in the declaration concerning the departed--"When he entered
into the house that is so full [of guests], there was grief for the
memory of the sage, the man that was hard as adamant, that bore
calamities of every sort, that was a widower through the death of my
mother, that was like a pellucid fountain, and had a name pure from
crime. Erected in affection by me his son to my father."[36]

With respect to the extent and range of the Phœnician book literature,
the little that can be gathered from the notices remaining to us in
the Greek and Roman writers is the following. In Phœnicia Proper there
were historical writers at least from the time of Hiram, the
contemporary of David, who wrote the annals of their country in a curt
dry form somewhat resembling that of Kings and Chronicles.[37] The
names of the kings and the length of their reigns were carefully
recorded, together with some of the more remarkable events belonging
to each reign; but there was no attempt at the philosophy of history,
nor at the graces of composition. In some places, especially at Sidon,
philosophy and science were to a certain extent cultivated. Mochus, a
Sidonian, wrote a work on the atomic theory at a very early date,
though scarcely, as Posidonius maintained,[38] one anterior to the
Trojan war. Later on, the Sidonian school specially affected astronomy
and arithmetic, in which they made so much progress that the Greeks
acknowledged themselves their debtors in those branches of
knowledge.[39] It is highly probable, though not exactly capable of
proof, that the Tyrian navigators from a very remote period embodied
in short works the observations which they made in their voyages, on
the geography, hydrography, ethology, and natural history of the
counties, which were visited by them. Hanno's "Periplus" may have been
composed on a model of these earlier treatises, which at a later date
furnished materials to Marinus for his great work on geography. It
was, however, in the Phœnician colony of Carthage that authorship was
taken up with most spirit and success. Hiempsal, Hanno, Mago,
Hamilcar, and others, composed works, which the Romans valued highly,
on the history, geography, and "origines" of Africa, and also upon
practical agriculture.[40] Mago and Hamilcar were regarded as the best
authorities on the latter subject both by the Greeks and Romans, and
were followed, among the Greeks by Mnaseas and Paxamus,[41] among the
Romans by Varro and Columella.[42] So highly was the work of Mago,
which ran to twenty-eight books, esteemed, that, on the taking of
Carthage, it was translated into Latin by order of the Roman
Senate.[43] After the fall of Carthage, Tyre and Sidon once more
became seats of learning; but the Phœnician language was discarded,
and Greek adopted in its place. The Tyrian, Sidonian, Byblian and
Berytian authors, of whom we hear, bear Greek names:[44] and it is
impossible to say whether they belonged, in any true sense, to the
Phœnician race. Philo of Byblus and Marinus of Tyre are the only two
authors of this later period who held to Phœnician traditions, and,
presumably, conveyed on to later ages Phœnician ideas and
accumulations. If neither literature nor science gained much from the
work of the former, that of the latter had considerable value, and, as
the basis of the great work of Ptolemy, must ever hold an honourable
place in the history of geographical progress.



CHAPTER XIV

POLITICAL HISTORY


1. Phœnicia, before the establishment of the hegemony of Tyre.

  Separate autonomy of the Phœnician cities--No marked predominance
  of any one or more of them during the Egyptian period, B.C. 1600-
  1350--A certain pre-eminence subsequently acquired by Aradus and
  Sidon--Sidonian territorial ascendancy--Great proficiency of Sidon
  in the arts--Sidon's war with the Philistines--Her early colonies
  --Her advances in navigation--Her general commercial honesty--
  Occasional kidnapping--Stories of Io and Eumæus--Internal
  government--Relations with the Israelites.

When the Phœnician immigrants, in scattered bands, and at longer or
shorter intervals, arrived upon the Syrian coast, and finding it empty
occupied it, or wrested it from its earlier possessors, there was a
decided absence from among them of any single governing or controlling
authority; a marked tendency to assert and maintain separate rule and
jurisdiction. Sidon, the Arkite, the Arvadite, the Zemarite, are
separately enumerated in the book of Genesis;[1] and the Hebrews have
not even any one name under which to comprise the commercial people
settled upon their coast line,[2] until we come to Gospel times, when
the Greeks have brought the term "Syro-Phœnician" into use.[3]
Elsewhere we hear of "them of Sidon," "them of Tyre,"[4] "the
Giblites,"[5] "the men of Arvad,"[6] "the Arkites," "the Sinites,"
"the Zemarites,"[7] "the inhabitants of Accho, of Achzib, and
Aphek,"[8] but never of the whole maritime population north of
Philistia under any single ethnic appellation. And the reason seems to
be, that the Phœnicians, even more than the Greeks, affected a city
autonomy. Each little band of immigrants, as soon as it had pushed its
way into the sheltered tract between the mountains and the sea,
settled itself upon some attractive spot, constructed habitations, and
having surrounded its habitations with walls, claimed to be--and found
none to dispute the claim--a distinct political entity. The
conformation of the land, so broken up into isolated regions by strong
spurs from Lebanon and Bargylus, lent additional support to the
separatist spirit, and the absence in the early times of any pressure
of danger from without permitted its free indulgence without entailing
any serious penalty. It is difficult to say at what time the first
settlements took place; but during the period of Egyptian supremacy
over Western Asia, under the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties (ab.
B.C. 1600-1350), we seem to find the Phœnicians in possession of the
coast tract, and their cities severally in the enjoyment of
independence and upon a quasi-equality. Tyre, Sidon, Gebal, Aradus,
Simyra, Sarepta, Berytus, and perhaps Arka, appear in the inscriptions
of Thothmes III,[9] and in the "Travels of a Mohar,"[10] without an
indication of the pre-eminence, much less the supremacy, of any one of
them. The towns pursued their courses independently one of another,
submitting to the Egyptians when hard pressed, but always ready to
reassert themselves, and never joining, so far as appears, in any
league or confederation, by which their separate autonomy might have
been endangered. During this period no city springs to any remarkable
height of greatness or prosperity; material progress is, no doubt,
being made by the nation; but it is not very marked, and it does not
excite any particular attention.

But with the decline of the Egyptian power, which sets in after the
death of the second Rameses, a change takes place. External pressure
being removed, ambitions begin to develop themselves. In the north
Aradus (Arvad), in the south Sidon, proceed to exercise a sort of
hegemony over several neighbouring states. Sidon becomes known as
"Great Zidon."[11] Not content with her maritime ascendancy, which was
already pushing her into special notice, she aspired to a land
dominion, and threw out offshoots from the main seat of her power as
far as Laish, on the head-waters of the Jordan.[12] It was her
support, probably, which enabled the inhabitants of such comparatively
weak cities as Accho and Achzib and Aphek to resist the invasion of
the Hebrews, and maintain themselves, despite all attempts made to
reduce them.[13] At the same time she gradually extended her influence
over the coast towns in her neighbourhood, as Sarepta, Heldun, perhaps
Berytus, Ecdippa, and Accho. The period which succeeds that of
Egyptian preponderance in Western Asia may be distinguished as that of
Sidonian ascendancy, or of such ascendancy slightly modified by an
Aradian hegemony in the north over the settlements intervening between
Mount Casius and the northern roots of Lebanon.[14] During this period
Sidon came to the front, alike in arts, in arms, and in navigation.
Her vessels were found by the earliest Greek navigators in all parts
of the Mediterranean into which they themselves ventured, and were
known to push themselves into regions where no Greek dared to follow
them. Under her fostering care Phœnician colonisation had spread over
the whole of the Western Mediterranean, over the Ægean, and into the
Propontis. She had engaged in war with the powerful nation of the
Philistines, and, though worsted in the encounter, had obtained a
reputation for audacity. By her wonderful progress in the arts, her
citizens had acquired the epithet of {poludaidaloi},[15] and had come
to be recognised generally as the foremost artificers of the world in
almost every branch of industry. Sidonian metal-work was particularly
in repute. When Achilles at the funeral of Patroclus desired to offer
as a prize to the fastest runner the most beautiful bowl that was to
be found in all the world, he naturally chose one which had been
deftly made by highly-skilled Sidonians, and which Phœnician sailors
had conveyed in one of their hollow barks across the cloud-shadowed
sea.[16] When Menelaus proposed to present Telemachus, the son of his
old comrade Odysseus, with what was at once the most beautiful and the
most valuable of all his possessions, he selected a silver bowl with a
golden rim, which in former days he had himself received as a present
from Phædimus, the Sidonian king.[17] The sailors who stole Eumæus
from Ortygia, and carried him across the sea to Ithica, obtained their
prize by coming to his father's palace, and bringing with them, among
other wares,

  . . . a necklace of fine gold to sell,
  With bright electron linked right wondrously and well.[18]

Sidon's pre-eminence in the manufacture, the dyeing, and the
embroidery of textile fabrics was at the same time equally
unquestionable. Hecuba, being advised to offer to Athêné, on behalf of
her favourite son, the best and loveliest of all the royal robes which
her well-stored dress-chamber could furnish--

  She to her fragrant wardrobe bent her way,
  Where her rich veils in beauteous order lay;
  Webs by Sidonian virgins finely wrought,
  From Sidon's woofs by youthful Paris brought,
  When o'er the boundless main the adulterer led
  Fair Helen from her home and nuptial bed;
  From these she chose the fullest, fairest far,
  With broidery bright, and blazing as a star.[19]

Already, it would seem, the precious shell-fish, on which Phœnicia's
commerce so largely rested in later times, had been discovered; and it
was the dazzling hue of the robe which constituted its especial value.
Sidon was ultimately eclipsed by Tyre in the productions of the loom;
and the unrivalled dye has come down to us, and will go down to all
future ages, as "/Tyrian/ purple;" but we may well believe that in
this, as in most other matters on which prosperity and success
depended, Tyre did but follow in the steps of her elder sister Sidon,
perfecting possibly the manufacture which had been Sidon's discovery
in the early ages. According to Scylax of Cadyanda, Dor was a Sidonian
colony.[20] Geographically it belonged rather to Philistia than to
Phœnicia; but its possession of large stores of the purple fish caused
its sudden seizure and rapid fortification at a very remote date,
probably by the Phœnicians of Sidon.[21] It is quite possible that
this aggression may have provoked that terrible war to which reference
has already been made, between the Philistines under the hegemony of
Ascalon and the first of the Phœnician cities. Ascalon attacked the
Sidonians by land, blockaded the offending town, and after a time
compelled a surrender; but the defenders had a ready retreat by sea,
and, when they could no longer hold out against their assailants, took
ship, and removed themselves to Tyre, which at the time was probably a
dependency.[22]

In navigation also and colonisation Sidon took the lead. According to
some, she was the actual founder of Aradus, which was said to have
owed its origin to a body of Sidonian exiles, who there settled
themselves.[23] Not much reliance, however, can be placed on this
tradition, which first appears in a writer of the Augustan age. With
more confidence we may ascribe to Sidon the foundation of Citium in
Cyprus, the colonisation of the islands in the Ægean, and of those
Phœnician settlements in North Africa which were anterior to the
founding of Carthage. It has even been supposed that the Sidonians
were the first to make a settlement at Carthage itself,[24] and that
the Tyrian occupation under Dido was a recolonisation of an already
occupied site. Anyhow, Sidon was the first to explore the central
Mediterranean, and establish commercial relations with the barbarous
tribes of the mid-African coast, Cabyles, Berbers, Shuloukhs, Tauriks,
and others. She is thought to claim on a coin to be the mother-city of
Melita, or Malta, as well as of Citium and Berytus;[25] and, if this
claim be allowed, we can scarcely doubt that she was also the first to
plant colonies in Sicily. Further than this, it would seem, Sidonian
enterprise did not penetrate. It was left for Tyre to discover the
wealth of Southern Spain, to penetrate beyond the Straits of
Gibraltar, and to affront the perils of the open ocean.

But, within the sphere indicated, Sidonian rovers traversed all parts
of the Great Sea, penetrated into every gulf, became familiar sights
to the inhabitants of every shore. From timid sailing along the coast
by day, chiefly in the summer season, when winds whispered gently, and
atmospheric signs indicated that fair weather had set in, they
progressed by degrees to long voyages, continued both by night and
day,[26] from promontory to promontory, or from island to island,
sometimes even across a long stretch of open sea, altogether out of
sight of land, and carried on at every season of the year except some
few of special danger. To Sidon is especially ascribed the
introduction of the practice of sailing by night,[27] which shortened
the duration of voyages by almost one-half, and doubled the number of
trips that a vessel could accomplish in the course of a year. For
night sailing the arts of astronomy and computation had to be
studied;[28] the aspect of the heavens at different seasons had to be
known; and among the shifting constellations some fixed point had to
be found by which it would be safe to steer. The last star in the tail
of the Little Bear--the polar star of our own navigation books--was
fixed upon by the Phœnicians, probably by the Sidonians, for this
purpose,[29] and was practically employed as the best index of the
true north from a remote period. The rate of a ship's speed was,
somehow or other, estimated; and though it was long before charts were
made, or the set of currents taken into account, yet voyages were for
the most part accomplished with very tolerable accuracy and safety. An
ample commerce grew up under Sidonian auspices. After the vernal
equinox was over a fleet of white-winged ships sped forth from the
many harbours of the Syrian coast, well laden with a variety of wares
--Phœnician, Assyrian, Egyptian[30]--and made for the coasts and
islands of the Levant, the Ægean, the Propontis, the Adriatic, the
mid-Mediterranean, where they exchanged the cargoes which they had
brought with them for the best products of the lands whereto they had
come. Generally, a few weeks, or at most a month or two, would
complete the transfer the of commodities, and the ships which left
Sidon in April or May would return about June or July, unload, and
make themselves ready for a second voyage. But sometimes, it appears,
the return cargo was not so readily procured, and vessels had to
remain in the foreign port, or roadstead, for the space of a whole
year.[31]

The behaviour of the traders must, on the whole, have been such as won
the respect of the nations and tribes wherewith they traded.
Otherwise, the markets would soon have been closed against them, and,
in lieu of the peaceful commerce which the Phœnicians always affected,
would have sprung up along the shores of the Mediterranean a general
feeling of distrust and suspicion, which would have led on to hostile
encounters, surprises, massacres, and then reprisals. The entire
history of Phœnician commerce shows that such a condition of things
never existed. The traders and their customers were bound together by
the bonds of self-interest, and, except in rare instances, dealt by
each other fairly and honestly. Still, there were occasions when,
under the stress of temptation, fair-dealing was lost sight of, and
immediate prospect of gain was allowed to lead to the commission of
acts destructive of all feeling of security, subversive of commercial
morals, and calculated to effect a rupture of commercial relations,
which it may often have taken a long term of years to re-establish.
Herodotus tells us that, at a date considerably anterior to the Trojan
war, when the ascendancy over the other Phœnician cities must
certainly have belonged to Sidon, an affair of this kind took place on
the coast of Argolis, which was long felt by the Greeks as an injury
and an outrage. A Phœnician vessel made the coast near Argos, and the
crew, having effected a landing, proceeded to expose their merchandise
for sale along the shore, and to traffic with the natives, who were
very willing to make purchases, and in the course of five or six days
bought up almost the entire cargo. At length, just as the traders were
thinking of re-embarking and sailing away, there came down to the
shore from the capital a number of Argive ladies, including among them
a princess, Io, the daughter of Inachus, the Argive king. Hereupon,
the trafficking and the bargaining recommenced; goods were produced
suited to the taste of the new customers; and each strove to obtain
what she desired most at the least cost. But suddenly, as they were
all intent upon their purchases, and were crowding round the stern of
the ship, the Phœnicians, with a general shout, rushed upon them. Many
--the greater part, we are told--made their escape; but the princess,
and a certain number of her companions, were seized and carried on
board. The traders quickly put to sea, and hoisting their sails,
hurried away to Egypt.[32]

Another instance of kidnapping, accomplished by art rather than by
force, is related to us by Homer.[33] Eumæus, the swineherd of
Ulysses, was the son of a king, dwelling towards the west, in an
island off the Sicilian coast. A Phœnician woman, herself kidnapped
from Sidon by piratical Taphians, had the task of nursing and tending
him assigned to her, and discharged it faithfully until a great
temptation befell her. A Sidonian merchant-ship visited the island,
laden with rich store of precious wares, and proceeded to open a trade
with the inhabitants, in the course of which one of the sailors
seduced the Phœnician nurse, and suggested that when the vessel left,
she should allow herself to be carried off in it. The woman, whose
parents were still alive at Sidon, came into the scheme, and being
apprised of the date of the ship's departure, stole away from the
palace unobserved, taking with her three golden goblets, and also her
master's child, the boy of whom she had charge. It was evening, and
all having been prepared beforehand, the nurse and child were hastily
smuggled on board, the sails were hoisted, and the ship was soon under
weigh. The wretched woman died ere the voyage was over, but the boy
survived, and was carried by the traders to Ithaca, and there sold for
a good sum to Laërtes.

It is not suggested that these narratives, in the form in which they
have come down to us, are historically true. There may never have been
an "Io, daughter of Inachus," or an "Eumæus, son of Ctesius
Ormenides," or an island, "Syria called by name, over against
Ortygia," or even a Ulysses or a Laërtes. But the tales could never
have grown up, have been invented, or have gained acceptance, unless
the practice of kidnapping, on which they are based, had been known to
be one in which the Phœnicians of the time indulged, at any rate
occasionally. We must allow this blot on the Sidonian escutcheon, and
can only plead, in extenuation of their offence, first, the imperfect
morality of the age, and secondly, the fact that such deviations from
the line of fair-dealing and honesty on the part of the Sidonian
traders must have been of rare occurrence, or the flourishing and
lucrative trade, which was the basis of all the glory and prosperity
of the people, could not possibly have been established. Successful
commerce must rest upon the foundation of mutual confidence; and
mutual confidence is impossible unless the rules of fair dealing are
observed on both sides, if not invariably, yet, at any rate, so
generally that the infraction of them is not contemplated on either
side as anything but the remotest contingency.

Of the internal government of Sidon during this period no details have
come down to us. Undoubtedly, like all the Phœnician cities in the
early times,[34] she had her own kings; and we may presume, from the
almost universal practice in ancient times, and especially in the
East,[35] that the monarchy was hereditary. The main duties of the
king were to lead out the people to battle in time of war, and to
administer justice in time of peace.[36] The kings were in part
supported, in part held in check, by a powerful aristocracy--an
aristocracy which, we may conjecture, had wealth, rather than birth,
as its basis. It does not appear that any political authority was
possessed by the priesthood, nor that the priesthood was a caste, as
in India, and (according to some writers) in Egypt. The priestly
office was certainly not attached by any general custom to the person
of the kings, though kings might be priests, and were so
occasionally.[37]

We do not distinctly hear of Sidon has having been engaged in any war
during the period of her ascendancy, excepting that with the
Philistines. Still as "the Zidonians" are mentioned among the nations
which "oppressed Israel" in the time of the Judges,[38] we must
conclude that differences arose between them and their southern
neighbours in some portion of this period, and that, war having broken
out between them, the advantage rested with Sidon. The record of
"Judges" is incomplete, and does not enable us even to fix the date of
the Sidonian "oppression." We can only say that it was anterior to the
judgeship of Jephthah, and was followed, like the other "oppressions,"
by a "deliverance."

The war with the Philistines brought the period of Sidonian ascendancy
to an end, and introduces us to the second period of Phœnician
history, or that of the hegemony of Tyre. The supposed date of the
change is B.C. 1252.[39]


2. Phœnicia under the hegemony of Tyre
(B.C. 1252-877)

  Influx of the Sidonian population raises Tyre to the first place
  among the cities (about B.C. 1252)--First notable result, the
  colonisation of Gades (B.C. 1130)--Other colonies of about this
  period--Extension of Phœnician commerce--Tyre ruled by kings--Abi-
  Baal--Hiram--Hiram's dealings with Solomon--His improvement of his
  own capital--His opinion of "the land of Cabul"--His joint trade
  with the Israelites--His war with Utica--Successors of Hiram--Time
  of disturbance--Reign of Ithobal--of Badezor--of Matgen--of
  Pygmalion--Founding of Carthage--First contact of Phœnicia with
  Assyria--Submission of Phœnicia, B.C. 877.

Tyre was noted as a "strong city" as early as the time of Joshua,[40]
and was probably inferior only to Sidon, or to Sidon and Aradus,
during the period of Sidonian ascendancy. It is mentioned in the
"Travels of a Mohar" (about B.C. 1350) as "a port, richer in fish than
in sands."[41] The tradition was, that it acquired its predominance
and pre-eminence from the accession of the Sidonian population, which
fled thither by sea, when no longer able to resist the forces of
Ascalon.[42] We do not find it, however, attaining to any great
distinction or notoriety, until more than a century later, when it
distinguishes itself by the colonisation of Gades (about B.C. 1130),
beyond the Pillars of Hercules, on the shores of the Atlantic. We may
perhaps deduce from this fact, that the concentration of energy caused
by the removal to Tyre of the best elements in the population of Sidon
gave a stimulus to enterprise, and caused longer voyages to be
undertaken, and greater dangers to be affronted by the daring seamen
of the Syrian coast than had ever been ventured on before. The Tyrian
seamen were, perhaps, of a tougher fibre than the Sidonian, and the
change of hegemony is certainly accompanied by a greater display of
energy, a more adventurous spirit, a wider colonisation, and a more
wonderful commercial success, than characterise the preceding period
of Sidonian leadership and influence.

The settlements planted by Tyre in the first burst of her colonising
energy seem to have been, besides Gades, Thasos, Abdera, and Pronectus
towards the north, Malaca, Sexti, Carteia, Belon, and a second Abdera
in Spain, together with Caralis in Sardinia,[43] Tingis and Lixus on
the West African coast, and in North Africa Hadrumetum and the lesser
Leptis.[44] Her aim was to throw the meshes of her commerce wider than
Sidon had ever done, and so to sweep into her net a more abundant
booty. It was Tyre which especially affected "long voyages,"[45] and
induced her colonists of Gades to explore the shores outside the
Pillars of Hercules, northwards as far as Cornwall and the Scilly
Isles, southwards to the Fortunate Islands, and north-eastwards into
the Baltic. It is, no doubt, uncertain at what date these explorations
were effected, and some of them may belong to the /later/ hegemony of
Tyre, ab. B.C. 600; but the forward movement of the twelfth century
seems to have been distinctly Tyrian, and to have been one of the
results of the new position in which she was placed by the sudden
collapse of her elder sister, Sidon.

According to some,[46] Tyre, during the early period of her supremacy,
was under the government of /shôphetim/, or "judges;" but the general
usage of the Phœnician cities makes against this supposition. Philo in
his "Origines of Phœnicia" speaks constantly of kings,[47] but never
of judges. We hear of a king, Abd-Baal, at Berytus[48] about B.C.
1300. Sidonian kings are mentioned in connection with the myth of
Europa.[49] The cities founded by the Phœnicians in Cyprus are always
under monarchical rule.[50] Tyre itself, when its history first
presents itself to us in any detail, is governed by a king.[51] All
that can be urged on the other side is, that we know of no Tyrian king
by name until about B.C. 1050; and that, if there had been earlier
kings, it might have been expected that some record of them would have
come down to us. But to argue thus is to ignore the extreme scantiness
and casual character of the notices which have reached us bearing upon
the early Phœnician history. No writer has left us any continuous
history of Phœnicia, even in the barest outline.[52] Native monumental
annals are entirely wanting. We depend for the early times upon the
accident of Jewish monarchs having come into contact occasionally with
Phœnician ones, and on Jewish writers having noted the occasions in
Jewish histories. Scripture and Josephus alone furnish our materials
for the period now under consideration, and the materials are scanty,
fragmentary, and sadly wanting in completeness.

It is towards the middle of the eleventh century B.C. that these
materials become available. About the time when David was acclaimed as
king by the tribe of Judah at Hebron, a Phœnician prince mounted the
throne of Tyre, by name Abibalus, or Abi-Baal.[53] We do not know the
length of his reign; but, while the son of Jesse was still in the full
vigour of life, Abi-Baal was succeeded on the Tyrian throne by his
son, Hiram or Hirôm, a prince of great energy, of varied tastes, and
of an unusually broad and liberal turn of mind. Hiram, casting his eye
over the condition of the states and kingdoms which were his
neighbours, seems to have discerned in Judah and David a power and a
ruler whose friendship it was desirable to cultivate with a view to
the establishment of very close relations. Accordingly, it was not
long after the Jewish monarch's capture of the Jebusite stronghold on
Mount Zion that the Tyrian prince sent messengers to him to Jerusalem,
with a present of "timber of cedars," and a number of carpenters, and
stone-hewers, well skilled in the art of building.[54] David accepted
their services, and a goodly palace soon arose on some part of the
Eastern hill, of which cedar from Lebanon was the chief material,[55]
and of which Hiram's workmen were the constructors. At a later date
David set himself to collect abundant and choice materials for the
magnificent Temple which Solomon his son was divinely commissioned to
build on Mount Moriah to Jehovah; and here again "the Zidonians and
they of Tyre," or the subjects of Hiram, "brought much cedar wood to
David."[56] The friendship continued firm to the close of David's
reign;[57] and when Solomon succeeded his father as king of Israel and
lord of the whole tract between the middle Euphrates and Egypt, the
bonds were drawn yet closer, and an alliance concluded which placed
the two powers on terms of the very greatest intimacy. Hiram had no
sooner heard of Solomon's accession than he sent an embassy to
congratulate him;[58] and Solomon took advantage of the opening which
presented itself to announce his intention of building the Temple
which his father had designed, and to request Hiram's aid in the
completion of the work. Copies of letters which passed between the two
monarchs were preserved both in the Tyrian and the Jewish archives,
and the Tyrian versions are said to have been still extant in the
public record office of the city in the first century of the Christian
era.[59] These documents ran as follows:--

"Solomon to King Hiram [sends greeting]:--Know that my father David
was desirous of building a temple to God, but was prevented by his
wars and his continual expeditions; for he did not rest from subduing
his adversaries, until he had made every one of them tributary to him.
And now I for my part return thanks to God for the present time of
peace, and having rest thereby I purpose to build the house; for God
declared to my father that it should be built by me. Wherefore I
beseech thee to send some of thy servants with my servants to Mount
Lebanon, to cut wood there, for none among us can skill to hew timber
like unto the Sidonians. And I will pay the wood-cutters their hire at
whatsoever rate thou shalt determine."

"King Hiram to King Solomon [sends greeting]:--Needs must I praise
God, that hath given thee to sit upon thy father's throne, seeing that
thou art a wise man, and possessed of every virtue. And I, rejoicing
at these things, will do all that thou hast desired of me. I will by
my servants cut thee in abundance timber of cedar and timber of
cypress, and will bring them down to the sea, and command my servants
to construct of them a float, or raft, and navigate it to whatever
point of thy coast thou mayest wish, and there discharge them; after
which thy servants can carry them to Jerusalem. But be it thy care to
provide me in return with a supply of food, whereof we are in want as
inhabiting an island."[60]

The result was an arrangement by which the Tyrian monarch furnished
his brother king with timber of various kinds, chiefly cedar, cut in
Lebanon, and also with a certain number of trained artificers, workers
in metal, carpenters, and masons, while the Israelite monarch on his
part made a return in corn, wine, and oil, supplying Tyre, while the
contract lasted, with 20,000 cors of wheat, the same quantity of
barley, 20,000 baths of wine, and the same number of oil,
annually.[61] Phœnicia always needed to import supplies of food for
its abundant population,[62] and having an inexhaustible store of
timber in Lebanon, was glad to find a market for it so near. Thus the
arrangement suited both parties. The hillsides of Galilee and the
broad and fertile plains of Esdraelon and Sharon produced a
superabundance of wheat and barley, whereof the inhabitants had to
dispose in some quarter or other, and the highlands of Sumeria and
Judæa bore oil and wine far beyond the wants of those who cultivated
them. What Phœnicia lacked in these respects from the scantiness of
its cultivable soil, Palestine was able and eager to supply; while to
Phœnicia it was a boon to obtain, not only a market for her timber,
but also employment for her surplus population, which under ordinary
circumstances was always requiring to be carried off to distant lands,
from the difficulty of supporting itself at home.

A still greater advantage was it to the rude Judæans to get the
assistance of their civilised and artistic neighbours in the design
and execution, both of the Temple itself and of all those accessories,
which in ancient times a sacred edifice on a large scale was regarded
as requiring. The Phœnicians, and especially the Tyrians, had long
possessed, both in their home and foreign settlements, temples of some
pretension, and Hiram had recently been engaged in beautifying and
adorning, perhaps in rebuilding, some of these venerable edifices at
Tyre.[63] A Phœnician architectural style had thus been formed, and
Hiram's architects and artificers would be familiar with constructive
principles and ornamental details, as well as with industrial
processes, which are very unlikely to have been known at the time to
the Hebrews. The wood for the Jewish Temple was roughly cut, and the
stones quarried, by Israelite workmen;[64] but all the delicate work,
whether in the one material or the other, was performed by the
servants of Hiram. Stone-cutters from Gebal (Byblus) shaped and
smoothed the "great stones, costly stones" employed in the
substructions of the "house;"[65] Tyrian carpenters planed and
polished the cedar planks used for the walls, and covered them with
representations of cherubs and palms and gourds and opening
flowers.[66] The metallurgists of Sidon probably supplied the cherubic
figures in the inner sanctuary,[67] as well as the castings for the
doors,[68] and the bulk of the sacred vessels. The vail which
separated between the "Holy Place" and the Holy of Holies--a
marvellous fabric of blue, and purple, and crimson, and white, with
cherubim wrought thereon[69]--owed its beauty probably to Tyrian dyers
and Tyrian workers in embroidery. The master-workman lent by the
Tyrian monarch to superintend the entire work--an extraordinary and
almost universal genius--"skilful to work in gold and in silver, in
brass, in iron, in stone, and in timber; in purple, in blue, in fine
linen, and in crimson; also to grave any manner of graving"[70]--who
bore the same name with the king,[71] was the son of an Israelite
mother, but boasted a Tyrian father,[72] and was doubtless born and
bred up at Tyre. Under his special direction were cast in the valley
of the Jordan, between Succoth and Zarthan,[73] those wonderful
pillars, known as Jachin and Boaz, which have already been described,
and which seem to have had their counterparts in the sacred edifices
both of Phœnicia and Cyprus.[74] To him also is specially ascribed the
"molten sea," standing on twelve oxen,[75] which was perhaps the most
artistic of all the objects placed within the Temple circuit, as are
also the lavers upon wheels,[76] which, if less striking as works of
art, were even more curious.

The partnership established between the two kingdoms in connection
with the building and furnishing of the Jewish Temple, which lasted
for seven years,[77] was further continued for thirteen more[78] in
connection with the construction of Solomon's palace. This palace,
like an Assyrian one, consisted of several distinct edifices. "The
chief was a long hall which, like the Temple, was encased in cedar;
whence probably its name, 'The House of the Forest of Lebanon.' In
front of it ran a pillared portico. Between this portico and the
palace itself was a cedar porch, sometimes called the Tower of David.
In this tower, apparently hung over the walls outside, were a thousand
golden shields, which gave to the whole place the name of the Armoury.
With a splendour that outshone any like fortress, the tower with these
golden targets glittered far off in the sunshine like the tall neck,
as it was thought, of a beautiful bride, decked out, after the manner
of the East, with strings of golden coins. This porch was the gem and
centre of the whole empire; and was so much thought of that a smaller
likeness to it was erected in another part of the precinct for the
queen. Within the porch itself was to be seen the king in state. On a
throne of ivory, brought from Africa or India, the throne of many an
Arabian legend, the kings of Judah were solemnly seated on the day of
their accession. From its lofty seat, and under that high gateway,
Solomon and his successors after him delivered their solemn judgments.
That 'porch' or 'gate of justice' still kept alive the likeness of the
old patriarchal custom of sitting in judgment at the gate; exactly as
the 'Gate of Justice' still recalls it to us at Granada, and the
Sublime Porte--'the Lofty Gate'--at Constantinople. He sate on the
back of a golden bull, its head turned over its shoulder, probably the
ox or bull of Ephraim; under his feet, on each side of the steps, were
six golden lions, probably the lions of Judah. This was 'the seat of
Judgment.' This was 'the throne of the House of David.'"[79]

We have dwelt the longer upon these matters because it is from the
lengthy and elaborate descriptions which the Hebrew writers give of
these Phœnician constructions at Jerusalem that we must form our
conceptions, not only of the state of Phœnician art in Hiram's time,
but also of the works wherewith he adorned his own capital. He came to
the throne at the age of nineteen,[80] on the decease of his father,
and immediately set to work to improve, enlarge, and beautify the
city, which in his time claimed the headship of, at any rate, all
Southern Phœnicia. He found Tyre a city built on two islands,
separated the one from the other by a narrow channel, and so cramped
for room that the inhabitants had no open square, or public place, on
which they could meet, and were closely packed in overcrowded
dwellings.[81] The primary necessity was to increase the area of the
place; and this Hiram effected, first, by filling up the channel
between the two islands with stone and rubbish, and so gaining a space
for new buildings, and then by constructing huge moles or embankments
towards the east, and towards the south, where the sea was shallowest,
and thus turning what had been water into land. In this way he so
enlarged the town that he was able to lay out a "wide space"
(Eurychôrus)[82] as a public square, which, like the Piazza di San
Marco at Venice, became the great resort of the inhabitants for
business and pleasure. Having thus provided for utility and
convenience, he next proceeded to embellishment and ornamentation. The
old temples did not seem to him worthy of the renovated capital; he
therefore pulled them down and built new ones in their place. In the
most central part of the city[83] he erected a fane for the worship of
Melkarth and Ashtoreth, probably retaining the old site, but
constructing an entirely new building--the building which Herodotus
visited,[84] and in which Alexander insisted on sacrificing.[85]
Towards the south-west,[86] on what had been a separate islet, he
raised a temple to Baal, and adorned it with a lofty pillar of
gold,[87] or at any rate plated with gold. Whether he built himself a
new palace is not related; but as the royal residence of later times
was situated on the southern shore,[88] which was one of Hiram's
additions to his capital, it is perhaps most probable that the
construction of this new palace was due to him. The chief material
which he used in his buildings was, as in Jerusalem, cedar. The
substructions alone were of stone. They were probably not on so grand
a scale as those of the Jewish Temple, since the wealth of Hiram,
sovereign of a petty kingdom, must have fallen very far short of
Solomon's, ruler of an extensive empire.

At the close of the twenty years during which Hiram had assisted
Solomon in his buildings, the Israelite monarch deemed it right to
make his Tyrian brother some additional compensation beyond the corn,
and wine, and oil with which, according to his contract, he had
annually supplied him. Accordingly, he voluntarily ceded to him a
district of Galilee containing twenty cities, a portion of the old
inheritance of Asher,[89] conveniently near to Accho, of which Hiram
was probably lord, and not very remote from Tyre. The tract appears to
have been that where the modern Kabûl now stands, which is a rocky and
bare highland,[90]--part of the outlying roots of Lebanon--overlooking
the rich plain of Akka or Accho, and presenting a striking contrast to
its fertility. Hiram, on the completion of the cession, "came out from
Tyre to see the cities which Solomon had given him," and was
disappointed with the gift. "What cities are these," he said, "which
thou hast given me, my brother? And he called them the land of Cabul"
--"rubbish" or "offscourings"--to mark his disappointment.[91]

But this passing grievance was not allowed in any way to overshadow,
or interfere with, the friendly alliance and "entente cordiale" (to
use a modern phrase) which existed between the two nations. Solomon,
according to one authority,[92] paid a visit to Tyre, and gratified
his host by worshipping in a Sidonian temple. According to
another,[93] Hiram gave him in marriage, as a secondary wife, one of
his own daughters--a marriage perhaps alluded to by the writer of
Kings when he tells us that "King Solomon loved many strange women
together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites,
Ammonites, Edomites, /Zidonians/, and Hittites."[94] The closest
commercial relations were established between the two countries, and
the hope of them was probably one of the strongest reasons which
attracted both parties to the alliance. The Tyrians, on their part,
possessed abundant ships; their sailors had full "knowledge of the
sea,"[95] and the trade of the Mediterranean was almost wholly in
their hands. Solomon, on his side, being master of the port of Ezion-
Geber on the Red Sea, had access to the lucrative traffic with Eastern
Africa, Arabia, and perhaps India, which had hitherto been confined to
the Egyptians and the Arabs. He had also, by his land power, a command
of the trade routes along the Cœle-Syrian valley, by Aleppo, and by
Tadmor, which enabled him effectually either to help or to hinder the
Phœnician land traffic. Thus either side had something to gain from
the other, and a close commercial union might be safely counted on to
work for the mutual advantage of both. Such a union, therefore, took
place. Hiram admitted Solomon to a participation in his western
traffic; and the two kings maintained a conjoint "navy of
Tarshish,"[96] which, trading with Spain and the West coast of Africa,
brought to Phœnicia and Palestine "once in three years" many precious
and rare commodities, the chief of them being "gold, and silver,
ivory, and apes, and peacocks." Spain would yield the gold and the
silver, for the Tagus brought down gold,[97] and the Spanish silver-
mines were the richest in the world.[98] Africa would furnish in
abundance the ivory and the apes; for elephants were numerous in
Mauritania,[99] and on the west coast,[100] in ancient times; and the
gorilla[101] and the Barbary ape are well-known African products.
Africa may also have produced the "peacocks," if /tukkiyim/ are really
"peacocks," though they are not found there at the present day. Or the
/tukkiyim/ may have been Guinea-fowl--a bird of the same class with
the peacock.

In return, Solomon opened to Hiram the route to the East by way of the
Red Sea. Solomon, doubtless by the assistance of shipwrights furnished
to him from Tyre, "made a navy of ships at Ezion-Geber, which is
beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom,"[102]
and the sailors of the two nations conjointly manned the ships, and
performed the voyage to Ophir, whence they brought gold, and "great
plenty of almug-trees," and precious stones.[103] The position of
Ophir has been much disputed, but the balance of argument is in favour
of the theory which places it in Arabia, on the south-eastern coast, a
little outside the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb.[104] It is possible that
the fleet did not confine itself to trade with Ophir, but, once
launched on the Indian Ocean, proceeded along the Atlantic coast to
the Persian Gulf and the peninsula of Hindustan. Or Ophir may have
been an Arab emporium for the Indian trade, and the merchants of Syria
may have found there the Indian commodities, and the Indian
woods,[105] which they seem to have brought back with them to their
own country. A most lucrative traffic was certainly established by the
united efforts of the two kings; and if the lion's share of the profit
fell to Solomon and the Hebrews,[106] still the Phœnicians and Hiram
must have participated to some considerable extent in the gains made,
or the arrangement would not have continued.

It is thought that Hiram was engaged in one war of some importance.
Menander tells us, according to the present text of Josephus,[107]
that the "Tityi" revolted from him, and refused any longer to pay him
tribute, whereupon he made an expedition against them, and succeeded
in compelling them to submit to his authority. As the "Tityi" are an
unknown people, conjecture has been busy in suggesting other
names,[108] and critics are now of the opinion that the original word
used by Menander was not "Tityi," but "Itykæi." The "Itykæi" are the
people of Utica: and, if this emendation be accepted,[109] we must
regard Hiram as having had to crush a most important and dangerous
rebellion. Utica, previously to the foundation of Carthage, was by far
the most important of all the mid-African colonies, and her successful
revolt would probably have meant to Tyre the loss of the greater
portion, if not the whole, of those valuable settlements. A rival to
her power would have sprung up in the West, which would have crippled
her commerce in that quarter, and checked her colonising energy. She
would have suffered thus early more than she did four hundred years
later by the great development of the power of Carthage; would have
lost a large portion of her prestige; and have entered on the period
of her decline when she had but lately obtained a commanding position.
Hiram's energy diverted these evils: he did not choose that his
kingdom should be dismembered, if he could anyhow help it; and,
offering a firm and strenuous opposition to the revolt, he succeeded
in crushing it, and maintaining the unity of the empire.

The brilliant reign of Hiram, which covered the space of forty-three
years, was not followed, like that of Solomon, by any immediate
troubles, either foreign or domestic. He had given his people, either
at home or abroad, constant employment; he had consulted their
convenience in the enlargement of his capital; he had enriched them,
and gratified their love of adventure, by his commercial enterprises;
he had maintained their prestige by rivetting their yoke upon a
subject state; he had probably pleased them by the temples and other
public buildings with which he had adorned and beautified their city.
Accordingly, he went down to the grave in peace; and not only so, but
left his dynasty firmly established in power. His son, Baal-azar or
Baleazar, who was thirty-six years of age, succeeded him, and held the
throne for seven years, when he died a natural death.[110] Abd-
Ashtoreth (Abdastartus), the fourth monarch of the house, then
ascended the throne, at the age of twenty, and reigned for nine years
before any troubles broke out. Then, however, a time of disturbance
supervened. Four of his foster-brothers conspired against Abd-
Ashtoreth, and murdered him. The eldest of them seized the throne, and
maintained himself upon it for twelve years, when Astartus, perhaps a
son of Baal-azar, became king, and restored the line of Hiram. He,
too, like his predecessor, reigned twelve years, when his brother,
Aserymus, succeeded him. Aserymus, after ruling for nine years, was
murdered by another brother, Pheles, who, in his turn, succumbed to a
conspiracy headed by the High Priest, Eth-baal, or Ithobal.[111] Thus,
while the period immediately following the death of Hiram was one of
tranquillity, that which supervened on the death of Abd-Astartus,
Hiram's grandson, was disturbed and unsettled. Three monarchs met with
violent deaths within the space of thirty-four years, and the reigning
house was, at least, thrice changed during the same interval.

At length with Ithobal a more tranquil time was reached. Ithobal, or
Eth-baal, was not only king, but also High Priest of Ashtoreth, and
thus united the highest sacerdotal with the highest civil authority.
He was a man of decision and energy, a worthy successor of Hiram,
gifted like him with wide-reaching views, and ambitious of
distinction. One of his first acts was to ally himself with Ahab, King
of Israel, by giving him his daughter, Jezebel, in marriage,[112] thus
strengthening his land dominion, and renewing the old relations of
friendship with the Hebrew people. Another act of vigour assigned to
him is the foundation of Botrys, on the Syrian coast, north of Gebal,
perhaps a defensive movement against Assyria.[113] Still more
enterprising was his renewal of the African colonisation by his
foundation of Aüza in Numidia,[114] which became a city of some
importance. Ithobal's reign lasted, we are told, thirty-two years. He
was sixty-eight years of age at his death, and was succeeded by his
son, who is called Badezor, probably a corruption of Balezor, or Baal-
azar[115]--the name given by Hiram to his son and successor. Of
Badezor we know nothing, except that he reigned six years, and was
succeeded by his son Matgen, perhaps Mattan,[116] a youth of twenty-
three.

With Matgen, or Mattan, whichever be the true form of the name, the
internal history of Tyre becomes interesting. It appears that two
parties already existed in the state, one aristocratic, and the other
popular.[117] Mattan, fearing the ascendancy of the popular party,
married his daughter, Elisa, whom he intended for his successor, to
her uncle and his own brother, Sicharbas, who was High Priest of
Melkarth, and therefore possessed of considerable authority in his own
person. Having effected this marriage, and nominated Elisa to succeed
him, Mattan died at the early age of thirty-two, after a reign of only
nine years.[118] Besides his daughter, he had left behind him a son,
Pygmalion, who, at his decease, was but eight or nine years old. This
child the democratic party contrived to get under their influence,
proclaimed him king, young as he was, and placed him upon the throne.
Elisa and her husband retired into private life, and lived in peace
for seven years, but Pygmalion, being then grown to manhood, was not
content to leave them any longer unmolested. He murdered Sicharbas,
and endeavoured to seize his riches. But the ex-Queen contrived to
frustrate his design, and having possessed herself of a fleet of
ships, and taken on board the greater number of the nobles, sailed
away, with her husband's wealth untouched, to Cyprus first, and then
to Africa.[119] Here, by agreement with the inhabitants, a site was
obtained, and the famous settlement founded, which became known to the
Greeks as "Karchêdon," and to the Romans as "Carthago," or Carthage.
Josephus places this event in the hundred and forty-fourth year after
the building of the Temple of Solomon,[120] or about B.C. 860. This
date, however, is far from certain.

It appears to have been in the reign of Ithobal that the first contact
took place between Phœnicia and Assyria. About B.C. 885, a powerful
and warlike monarch, by name Asshur-nazir-pal, mounted the throne of
Nineveh, and shortly engaged in a series of wars towards the south,
the east, the north, and the north-west.[121] In the last-named
direction he crossed the Euphrates at Carchemish (Jerablus), and,
having overrun the country between that river and the Orontes, he
proceeded to pass this latter stream also, and to carry his arms into
the rich tract which lay between the Orontes and the Mediterranean.
"It was a tract," says M. Maspero,[122] "opulent and thickly
populated, at once full of industries and commercial; the metals, both
precious and ordinary, gold, silver, copper, tin (?), iron, were
abundant; traffic with Phœnicia supplied it with the purple dye, and
with linen stuffs, with ebony and with sandal-wood. Asshur-nazir-pal's
attack seems to have surprised the chief of the Hittites in a time of
profound peace. Sangar, King of Carchemish, allowed the passage of the
Euphrates to take place without disputing it, and opened to the
Assyrians the gates of his capital. Lubarna, king of Kunulua, alarmed
at the power of the enemy, and dreading the issue of a battle, came to
terms with him, consenting to make over to him twenty talents of gold,
a talent of silver, two hundred talents of tin, a hundred of iron,
2,000 oxen, 10,000 sheep, a thousand garments of wool or linen,
together with furniture, arms, and slaves beyond all count. The
country of Lukhuti resisted, and suffered the natural consequences--
all the cities were sacked, and the prisoners crucified. After this
exploit, Asshur-nazir-pal occupied both the slopes of Mount Lebanon,
and then descended to the shores of the Mediterranean. Phœnicia did
not await his arrival to do him homage: the kings of Tyre, Sidon,
Gebal, and Arvad, 'which is in the midst of the sea,' sent him
presents. The Assyrians employed their time in cutting down cedar
trees in Lebanon and Amanus, together with pines and cypresses, which
they transported to Nineveh to be used in the construction of a temple
to Ishtar."

The period of the Assyrian subjection, which commenced with this
attack on the part of Asshur-nazir-pal, will be the subject of the
next section. It only remains here briefly to recapitulate the salient
points of Phœnician history under Tyre's first supremacy. In the first
place, it was a time of increased daring and enterprise, in which
colonies were planted upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, and trade
extended to the remote south, the more remote north, and the still
more remote north-east, to the Fortunate Islands, the Cassiterides,
and probably the Baltic. Secondly, it was a time when the colonies on
the North African coast were reinforced, strengthened, and increased
in number; when the Phœnician yoke was rivetted on that vast
projection into the Mediterranean which divides that sea into two
halves, and goes far to give the power possessing it entire command of
the Mediterranean waters. Thirdly, it was a time of extended commerce
with the East, perhaps the only time when Phœnician merchant vessels
were free to share in the trade of the Red Sea, to adventure
themselves in the Indian Ocean, and to explore the distant coasts of
Eastern Africa, Southern Arabia, Beloochistan, India and Ceylon.
Fourthly, it was a time of artistic vigour and development, when Tyre
herself assumed that aspect of splendour and magnificence which
thenceforth characterised her until her destruction by Alexander, and
when she so abounded in æsthetic energy and genius that she could
afford to take the direction of an art movement in a neighbouring
country, and to plant her ideas on that conspicuous hill which for
more than a thousand years drew the eyes of men almost more than any
other city of the East, and was only destroyed because she was felt by
Rome to be a rival that she could not venture to spare. Finally, it
was a time when internal dissensions, long existing, came to a head,
and the state lost, through a sudden desertion, a considerable portion
of its strength, which was transferred to a distant continent, and
there steadily, if not rapidly, developed itself into a power, not
antagonistic indeed, but still, by the necessity of its position, a
rival power--a new commercial star, before which all other stars,
whatever their brightness had been, paled and waned--a new factor in
the polity of nations, whereof account had of necessity to be taken; a
new trade-centre, which could not but supersede to a great extent all
former trade-centres, and which, however unwillingly, as it rose, and
advanced, and prospered, tended to dim, obscure, and eclipse the
glories of its mother-city.


3. Phœnicia during the period of its subjection to Assyria
(B.C. 877-635)

  Phœnicia conquered by the Assyrians (about B.C. 877)--Peaceful
  relations established (about B.C. 839)--Time of quiet and
  prosperity--Harsh measures of Tiglath-pileser II. (about B.C. 740)
  --Revolt of Simyra--Revolt of Tyre under Elulæus--Wars of Elulæus
  with Shalmaneser IV. and with Sennacherib--Reign of Abdi-Milkut--
  His war with Esarhaddon--Accession of Baal--His relations with
  Esarhaddon and Asshur-bani-pal--Revolt and reduction of Arvad,
  Hosah, and Accho--Summary.

The first contact of Phœnicia with Assyria took place, as above
observed, in the reign of Asshur-nazir-pal, about the year B.C. 877.
The principal cities, on the approach of the great conquering monarch,
with his multitudinous array of chariots, his clouds of horse, and his
innumerable host of foot soldiers, made haste to submit themselves,
sought to propitiate the invader by rich gifts, and accepted what they
hoped might prove a nominal subjection. Arvad, which, as the most
northern, was the most directly threatened, Gebal, Sidon, and even the
comparatively remote Tyre, sent their several embassies, made their
offerings, and became, in name at any rate, Assyrian dependencies. But
the real subjection of this country was not effected at this time, nor
without a struggle. Asshur-nazir-pal's yoke lay lightly upon his
vassals, and during the remainder of his long reign--from B.C. 877 to
B.C. 860--he seems to have desisted from military expeditions,[123]
and to have exerted no pressure on the countries situated west of the
Euphrates. It was not until the reign of his son and successor,
Shalmaneser II., that the real conquest of Syria and Phœnicia was
taken in hand, and pressed to a successful issue by a long series of
hard-fought campaigns and bloody battles. From his sixth to his
twenty-first year Shamaneser carried on an almost continuous war in
Syria,[124] where his adversaries were the monarchs of Damascus and
Hamath, and "the twelve kings beside the sea, above and below,"[125]
one of whom is expressly declared to have been "Mattan-Baal of
Arvad."[126] It was not until the year B.C. 839 that this struggle was
terminated by the submission of the monarchs engaged in it to their
great adversary, and the firm establishment of a system of "tribute
and taxes."[127] The Phœnician towns agreed to pay annually to the
Assyrian monarch a certain fixed sum in the precious metals, and
further to make him presents from time to time of the best products of
their country. Among these are mentioned "skins of buffaloes, horns of
buffaloes, clothing of wool and linen, violet wool, purple wool,
strong wood, wood for weapons, skins of sheep, fleeces of shining
purple, and birds of heaven."[128]

The relations of Phœnicia towards the Assyrian monarchy continued to
be absolutely peaceful for above a century. The cities retained their
native monarchs, their laws and institutions, their religion, and
their entire internal administration. So long as they paid the fixed
tribute, they appear not to have been interfered with in any way. It
would seem that their trade prospered. Assyria had under her control
the greater portion of those commercial routes across the continent of
Asia,[129] which it was of the highest importance to Phœnicia to have
open and free from peril. Her caravans could traverse them with
increased security, now that they were safeguarded by a power whereof
she was a dependency. She may even have obtained through Assyria
access to regions which had been previously closed to her, as Media,
and perhaps Persia. At any rate Tyre seems to have been as flourishing
in the later times of the Assyrian dominion as at almost any other
period. Isaiah, in denouncing woe upon her, towards the close of the
dominion, shows us what she had been under it:--

  Be silent (he says), ye inhabitants of the island,
  Which the merchants of Zidon, that pass over the sea, have replenished.
  The corn of the Nile, on the broad waters,
  The harvest of the River, has been her revenue:
  She has been the mart of nations . . .
  She was a joyful city,
  Her antiquity was of ancient days . . .
  She was a city that dispensed crowns;
  Her merchants were princes,
  And her traffickers the honourable of the earth.[130]

A change in the friendly feelings of the Phœnician cities towards
Assyria first began after the rise of the Second or Lower Assyrian
Empire, which was founded, about B.C. 745, by Tiglath-pileser II.[131]
Tiglath-pileser, after a time of quiescence and decay, raised up
Assyria to be once more a great conquering power, and energetically
applied himself to the consolidation and unification of the empire. It
was the Assyrian system, as it was the Roman, to absorb nations by
slow degrees--to begin by offering protection and asking in return a
moderate tribute; then to draw the bonds more close, to make fresh
demands and enforce them; finally, to pick a quarrel, effect a
conquest, and absorb the country, leaving it no vestige of
independence. Tiglath-pileser began this process of absorption in
Northern Syria about the year B.C. 740. He rearranged the population
in the various towns, taking from some and giving to others,[132]
adding also in most cases an Assyrian element, appointing Assyrian
governors,[133] and requiring of the inhabitants "the performance of
service like the Assyrians."[134] Among the places thus treated
between the years B.C. 740 and B.C. 738, we find the Phœnician cities
of Zimirra, or Simyra, and Arqa, or Arka. Zimirra was in the plain
between the sea and Mount Bargylus, not very far from the island of
Aradus, whereof it was a dependency. Arqa was further to the south,
beyond the Eleutherus, and belonged properly to Tripolis, if Tripolis
had as yet been founded, or else to Botrys. Both of them were readily
accessible from the Orontes valley along the course of the Eleutherus,
and, being weak, could offer no resistance. Tiglath-pileser carried
out his plans, rearranged the populations, and placed the cities under
Assyrian governors responsible to himself. There was no immediate
outbreak; but the injury rankled. Within twenty years Zimirra joined a
revolt, to which Hamath, Arpad, Damascus, and Samaria were likewise
parties, and made a desperate attempt to shake off the Assyrian
yoke.[135] The attempt failed, the revolt was crushed, and Zimirra is
heard of no more in history.

But this was not the worst. The harsh treatment of Simyra and Arka,
without complaint made or offence given, after a full century of
patient and quiet submission, aroused a feeling of alarm and
indignation among the Phœnician cities generally, which could not fail
to see in what had befallen their sisters a foreshadowing of the fate
that they had to expect one day themselves. Beginning with the weakest
cities, Assyria would naturally go on to absorb those which were
stronger, and Tyre herself, the "anointed cherub,"[136] could look for
no greater favour than, like Ulysses in the cave of Polyphemus, to be
devoured last. Luliya, or Elulæus, the king of Tyre at the time,[137]
endeavoured to escape this calamity by gathering to himself a strength
which would enable him to defy attack. He contrived to establish his
dominion over almost the whole of Southern Phœnicia--over Sidon,
Accho, Ecdippa, Sarepta, Hosah, Bitsette, Mahalliba, &c.[138]--and at
the same time over the distant Cyprus,[139] where the Cittæans, or
people of Citium, held command of the island. After a time the
Cittæans revolted from him, probably stirred up by the Assyrians. But
Elulæus, without delay, led an expedition into Cyprus, and speedily
put down the rebellion. Hereupon the Assyrian king of the time,
Shalmaneser IV., the successor and probably the son of Tiglath-pileser
II., led a great expedition into the west about B.C. 727, and "overran
all Syria and Phœnicia."[140] But he was unable to make any
considerable impression. Tyre and Aradus were safe upon their islands;
Sidon and the other cities upon the mainland, were protected by strong
and lofty walls. After a single campaign, the Great King found it
necessary to offer terms of peace, which proved acceptable, and the
belligerents parted towards the close of the year, without any serious
loss or gain on either side.[141]

It seemed necessary to adopt some different course of action.
Shalmaneser had discovered during his abortive campaign that there
were discords and jealousies among the various Phœnician cities; that
none of them submitted without repugnance to the authority of Tyre,
and that Sidon especially had an ancient ground of quarrel with her
more powerful sister, and always cherished the hope of recovering her
original supremacy. He had seen also that the greater number of the
Phœnician towns, if he chose to press upon them with the full force of
his immense military organisation, lay at his mercy. He had only to
invest each city on the land side, to occupy its territory, to burn
its villas, to destroy its irrigation works, to cut down its fruit
trees, to interfere with its water-supply, and in the last instance to
press upon it, to batter down its walls, to enter its streets,
slaughter its population, or drive it to take refuge in its
ships,[142] and he could become absolute master of the whole Phœnician
mainland. Only Tyre and Aradus could escape him. But might not they
also be brought into subjection by the naval forces which their sister
cities, once occupied, might be compelled to furnish, and to man, or,
at any rate, to assist in manning? Might not the whole of Phœnicia be
in this way absorbed into the empire? The prospect was pleasing, and
Shalmaneser set to work to convert the vision into a reality. By his
emissaries he stirred up the spirit of disaffection among the Tyrian
subject towns, and succeeded in separating from Tyre, and drawing over
to his own side, not only Sidon and Acre and their dependencies, but
even the city of Palæ-Tyrus itself,[143] or the great town which had
grown up opposite the island Tyre upon the mainland. The island Tyre
seems to have been left without support or ally, to fight her own
battle singly. Shalmaneser called upon his new friends to furnish him
with a fleet, and they readily responded to the call, placing their
ships at his disposal to the number of sixty, and supplying him
further with eight hundred skilled oarsmen, not a sufficient number to
dispense with Assyrian aid, but enough to furnish a nucleus of able
seamen for each vessel. The attack was then made. The Assyro-Phœnician
fleet sailed in a body from some port on the continent, and made a
demonstration against the Island City, which they may perhaps have
expected to frighten into a surrender. But the Tyrians were in no way
alarmed. They knew, probably, that their own countrymen would not
fight with very much zeal for their foreign masters, and they
despised, undoubtedly, the mixed crews, half skilled seamen, half
tiros and bunglers, which had been brought against them. Accordingly
they thought it sufficient to put to sea with just a dozen ships--one
to each five of the enemy, and making a sudden attack with these upon
the adverse fleet, they defeated it, dispersed it, and took five
hundred prisoners. Shalmaneser saw that he had again miscalculated;
and, despairing of any immediate success, drew off his ships and his
troops, and retired to his own country. He left behind him, however,
on the mainland opposite the island Tyre, a certain number of his
soldiers, with orders to prevent the Tyrians from obtaining, according
to their ordinary practice, supplies of water from the continent. Some
were stationed at the mouth of the river Leontes (the Litany), a
little to the north of Tyre, a perennial stream bringing down a large
quantity of water from Cœle-Syria and Lebanon; others held possession
of the aqueducts on the south, built to convey the precious fluid
across the plain from the copious springs of Ras el Ain[144] to the
nearest point of the coast opposite the city. The continental water
supply was thus effectually cut off; but the Tyrians were resolute,
and made no overtures to the enemy. For five years, we are told,[145]
they were content to drink such water only as could be obtained in
their own island from wells sunk in the soil, which must have been
brackish, unwholesome, and disagreeable. At the end of that time a
revolution occurred at Nineveh. Shalmaneser lost his throne (B.C.
722), and a new dynasty succeeding, amid troubles of various kinds,
attention was drawn away from Tyre to other quarters; and Elulæus was
left in undisturbed possession of his island city for nearly a quarter
of a century.

It appears that, during this interval, Elulæus rebuilt the power which
Shalmaneser had shattered and brought low, repossessing himself of
Cyprus, or, at any rate, of some portion of it,[146] and
re-establishing his authority over all those cities of the mainland
which had previously acknowledged subjection to him. These included
Sidon, Bit-sette, Sarepta, Mahalliba, Hosah, Achzib or Ecdippa, and
Accho (Acre). There is some ground for thinking that he transferred
his own residence to Sidon,[147] perhaps for the purpose of keeping
closer watch upon the town which he most suspected of disaffection.
The policy of Sargon seems to have been to leave Phœnicia alone, and
content himself with drawing the tribute which the cities were quite
willing to pay in return for Assyrian protection. His reign lasted
from B.C. 722 to B.C. 705, and it was not until Sennacherib, his son
and successor, had been seated for four years upon the throne that a
reversal of this policy took place, and war /à outrance/ was declared
against the Phœnician king, who had ventured to brave, and had
succeeded in baffling, Assyria more than twenty years previously.
Sennacherib entertained grand designs of conquest in this quarter, and
could not allow the example of an unpunished and triumphant rebellion
to be flaunted in the eyes of a dozen other subject states, tempting
them to throw off their allegiance. He therefore, as soon as affairs
in Babylonia ceased to occupy him, marched the full force of the
empire towards the west, and proclaimed his intention of crushing the
Phœnician revolt, and punishing the audacious rebel who had so long
defied the might of Assyria. The army which he set in motion must have
numbered more than 200,000 men;[148] its chariots were numerous,[149]
its siege-train ample and well provided.[150] Such terror did it
inspire among those against whom it was directed that Elulæus was
afraid even to await attack, and, while Sennacherib was still on his
march, took ship and removed himself to the distant island of
Cyprus,[151] where alone he could feel safe from pursuit and capture.
But, though deserted by their sovereign, his towns seem to have
declined to submit themselves. No great battle was fought; but
severally they took arms and defended their walls. Sennacherib tells
us that he took one after another--"by the might of the soldiers of
Asshur his lord"[152]--Great Sidon, Lesser Sidon, Bit-sette, Zarephath
or Sarepta, Mahalliba, Hosah, Achzib or Ecdippa, and Accho--"strong
cities, fortresses, walled and enclosed, Luliya's castles."[153] He
does not claim, however, to have taken Tyre, and we may conclude that
the Island City escaped him. But he made himself master of the entire
tract upon the continent which had constituted Luliya's kingdom, and
secured its obedience by placing over it a new king, in whom he had
confidence, a certain Tubaal[154] (Tob-Baal), probably a Phœnician. At
the same time he rearranged the yearly tribute which the cities had to
pay to Assyria,[155] probably augmenting it, as a punishment for the
long rebellion.

We hear nothing more of Phœnicia during the reign of Sennacherib,
except that, shortly after his conquest of the tract about Sidon, he
received tribute, not only from the king whom he had just set over
that town, but also from Uru-melek, king of Gebal (Byblus), and Abd-
ilihit, king of Arvad.[156] The three towns represent, probably, the
whole of Phœnicia, Aradus at this time exercising dominion over the
northern tract, or that extending from Mount Casius to the Eleutherus,
Gebal or Byblus over the central tract from the Eleutherus to the
Tamyras, and Sidon, in the temporary eclipse of Tyre, ruling the
southern tract from the Tamyrus to Mount Carmel. It appears
further,[157] that at some date between this tribute-giving (B.C. 701)
and the death of Sennacherib (B.C. 681) Tubaal must have been
succeeded in the government of Sidon by Abdi-Milkut, or
Abd-Melkarth[158] ({...}), but whether this change was caused by a
revolt, or took place in the ordinary course, Tubaal dying and being
succeeded by his son, is wholly uncertain.

All that we know is that Esarhaddon, on his accession, found Abd-
Melkarth in revolt against his authority. He had formed an alliance
with a certain Sanduarri, king of Kundi and Sizu,[159] a prince of the
Lebanon, and had set up as independent monarch, probably during the
time of the civil way which was waged between Esarhaddon and two of
his brothers who disputed his succession after they had murdered his
father.[160] As soon as this struggle was over, and the Assyrian
monarch found himself free to take his own course, he proceeded at
once (B.C. 680) against these two rebels. Both of them tried to escape
him. Abd-Melkarth, quitting his capital, fled away by sea, steering
probably either for Aradus or for Cyprus. Sanduarri took refuge in his
mountain fastnesses. But Esarhaddon was not to be baffled. He caused
both chiefs to be pursued and taken. "Abd-Melkarth," he says,[161]
"who from the face of my solders into the middle of the sea had fled,
like a fish from out of the sea, I caught, and cut off his head . . .
Sanduarri, who took Abd-Melkarth for his ally, and to his difficult
mountains trusted, like a bird from the midst of the mountains, I
caught and cut off his head." Sidon was very severely punished.
Esarhaddon boasts that he swept away all its subject cities, uprooted
its citadel and palace, and cast the materials into the sea, at the
same time destroying all its habitations. The town was plundered, the
treasures of the palace carried off, and the greater portion of the
population deported to Assyria. The blank was filled up with "natives
of the lands and seas of the East"--prisoners taken in Esarhaddon's
war with Babylon and Elam, who, like the Phœnicians themselves at a
remote time, exchanged a residence on the shores of the Persian Gulf
for one on the distant Mediterranean. An Assyrian general was placed
as governor over the city, and its name changed from Sidon to
"Ir-Esarhaddon."

It seems to have been in the course of the same year that Esarhaddon
held one of those courts, or /durbars/, in Syria, which all subject
monarchs were expected to attend, and whereat it was the custom that
they should pay homage to their suzerain. Hither flocked almost all
the neighbouring monarchs[162]--Manasseh, king of Judah, Qavus-gabri,
king of Ammon, Zilli-bel, king of Gaza, Mitinti of Askelon, Ikasamsu
of Ekron, Ahimelek of Ashdod, together with twelve kings of the
Cyprians, and three Phœnician monarchs, Baal, king of Tyre, Milki-
asaph, king of Gebal, and Mattan-baal, king of Arvad. Tribute was
paid, home rendered, and after a short sojourn at the court, the
subject-monarchs were dismissed. The foremost position in Esarhaddon's
list is occupied by "Baal, king of Tyre;" and this monarch appears to
have been received into exceptional favour. He had perhaps been
selected by Esarhaddon to rule Southern Phœnicia on the execution of
Abd-Melkarth. At any rate, he enjoyed for some time the absolute
confidence and high esteem of his suzerain. If we may venture to
interpret a mutilated inscription,[163] he furnished Esarhaddon with a
fleet, and manned it with his own sailors. Certainly, he received from
Esarhaddon a considerable extension of his dominions. Not only was his
authority over Accho recognised and affirmed, but the coast tract
south of Carmel, as far as Dor, the important city Gebal, and the
entire region of Lebanon, were placed under his sovereignty.[164] The
date assigned to these events is between B.C. 680 and B.C. 673. It was
in this latter year that the Assyrian monarch resolved on an invasion
of Egypt. For fifty years the two countries had been watching each
other, counteracting each other's policy, lending support to each
other's enemies, coming into occasional collision the one with the
other, not, however, as principals, but as partakers in other persons'
quarrels. Now, at length there was to be an end of subterfuge and
pretences. Esarhaddon, about B.C. 673, resolved to attempt the
conquest of Egypt. He "set his face to go to the country of Magan and
Milukha."[165] He let his intention be generally known. No doubt he
called on his subject allies for contingents of men, if not for
supplies of money. To Tyre he must naturally have looked for no
niggard or grudging support. What then must have been his disgust and
rage at finding that, at the critical moment, Tyre had gone over to
the enemy? Notwithstanding the favours heaped on him by his suzerain,
"Baal, king of Tyre, to Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, his country
entrusted, and the yoke of Asshur threw off and made defiance."[166]
Esarhaddon was too strongly bent on his Egyptian expedition to be
diverted from it by this defection; but in the year B.C. 672, as he
marched through Syria and Palestine on his way to attack Tirhakah, he
sent a detachment against Tyre, with orders to his officers to repeat
the tactics of Shalmaneser, by occupying points of the coast opposite
to the island Tyre, and "cutting off the supplies of food and
water."[167] Baal was by this means greatly distressed, and it would
seem that within a year or two he made his submission, surrendering
either to Esarhaddon or to his son Asshur-bani-pal, in about the year
of the latter's accession (B.C. 668). It is surprising to find that he
was not deposed from his throne; but as the circumstances seem to have
been such as made it imperative on the Assyrian king to condone minor
offences in order to accomplish a great enterprise--the restoration of
the Assyrian dominion over the Nile valley. Esarhaddon had effected
the conquest of Egypt in about the year B.C. 670, and had divided the
country into twenty petty principalities;[168] but within a year his
yoke had been thrown off, his petty princes expelled, and Tirhakah
reinstated as sole monarch over the "Two Regions."[169] It was the
determination of Asshur-bani-pal, on becoming king, to strain every
nerve and devote his utmost energy to the re-conquest of the ancient
kingdom, so lightly won and so lightly lost by his father. Baal's
perfidy was thus forgiven or overlooked. A great expedition was
prepared. The kings of Phœnicia, Palestine, and Cyprus were bidden
once more to assemble, to bring their tribute, and pay homage to their
suzerain as he passed on his way at the head of his forces towards the
land of the Pharaohs. Baal came, and again holds the post of
honour;[170] with him were the king of Judah--doubtless Manasseh, but
the name is lost--the kings of Edom, Moab, Gaza, Askelon, Ekron,
Gebal, Arvad, Paphos, Soli, Curium, Tamassus, Ammochosta, Lidini, and
Aphrodisias, with probably those also of Ammon, Ashdod, Idalium,
Citium, and Salamis.[171] Each in turn prostrated himself at the foot
of the Great Monarch, paid homage, and made profession of fidelity.
Asshur-bani-pal then proceeded on his way, and the kings returned to
their several governments.

It is about four years after this, B.C. 664, that we find Baal
attacked and punished by the Assyrian monarch. The subjugation of
Egypt had been in the meantime, though not without difficulty,
completed. Asshur-bani-pal's power extended from the range of Niphates
to the First Cataract. Whether during the course of the four years'
struggle, by which the reconquest of Egypt was effected, the Tyrian
prince had given fresh offence to his suzerain, or whether it was the
old offence, condoned for a time but never forgiven, that was now
avenged, is not made clear by the Assyrian Inscriptions. Asshur-bani-
pal simply tells us that, in his third expedition, he proceeded
against Baal, king of Tyre, dwelling in the midst of the sea, /who his
royal will disregarded, and did not listen to the words of his lips/.
"Towers round him," he says, "I raised, and over his people I
strengthened the watch; on sea and land his forts I took; his going
out I stopped. Water and sea-water, to preserve their lives, their
mouths drank. By a strong blockade, which removed not, I besieged
them; their works I checked and opposed; to my yoke I made them
submissive. The daughter proceeding from his body, and the daughters
of his brothers, for concubines he brought to my presence. Yahi-milki,
his son, the glory of the country, of unsurpassed renown, at once he
sent forward, to make obeisance to me. His daughter, and the daughters
of his brothers, with their great dowries, I received. Favour I
granted him, and the son proceeding from his body, I restored, and
gave him back."[172] Thus Baal once more escaped the fate he must have
expected. Asshur-bani-pal, who was far from being of a clement
disposition, suffered himself to be appeased by the submission made,
restored Baal to his favour, and allowed him to retain possession of
his sovereignty.

Another Phœnician monarch also was, about the same time, threatened
and pardoned. This was Yakinlu, the king of Arvad, probably the son
and successor of Mattan-Baal, the contemporary of Esarhaddon.[173] He
is accused of having been wanting in submission to Asshur-bani-pal's
fathers;[174] but we may regard it as probable that his real offence
was some failure in his duties towards Asshur-bani-pal himself. Either
he had openly rebelled, and declared himself independent, or he had
neglected to pay his tribute, or he had given recent offence in some
other way. The Phœnician island kings were always more neglectful of
their duties than others, since it was more difficult to punish them.
Assyria did not even now possess any regular fleet, and could only
punish a recalcitrant king of Arvad or Tyre by impressing into her
service the ships of some of the Phœnician coast-towns, as Sidon, or
Gebal, or Accho. These towns were not very zealous in such a service,
and probably did not maintain strong navies, having little use for
them. Thus Yakinlu may have expected that his neglect, whatever it
was, would be overlooked. But Asshur-bani-pal was jealous of his
rights, and careful not to allow any of them to lapse by disuse. He
let his displeasure be known at the court of Yakinlu, and very shortly
received an embassy of submission. Like Baal, Yakinlu sent a daughter
to take her place among the great king's secondary wives, and with her
he sent a large sum of money, in the disguise of a dowry.[175] The
tokens of subjection were accepted, and Yakinlu was allowed to
continue king of Arvad. When, not long afterwards, he died,[176] and
his ten sons sought the court of Nineveh to prefer their claims to the
succession, they were received with favour. Azi-Baal, the eldest, was
appointed to the vacant kingdom, while his nine brothers were
presented by Asshur-bani-pal with "costly clothing, and rings."[177]

Two other revolts of two other Phœnician towns belong to a somewhat
later period. On his return from an expedition against Arabia, about
B.C. 645, Asshur-bani-pal found that Hosah, a small place in the
vicinity of Tyre,[178] and Accho, famous as Acre in later times, had
risen in revolt against their Assyrian governors, refused their
tribute, and asserted independence.[179] He at once besieged, and soon
captured, Hosah. The leaders of the rebellion he put to death; the
plunder of the town, including the images of its gods, and the bulk of
its population, he carried off into Assyria. The people of Accho, he
says, he "quieted." It is a common practice of conquerors "to make a
solitude and call it peace." Asshur-bani-pal appears to have punished
Accho, first by a wholesale massacre, and then by the deportation of
all its remaining inhabitants.

It is evident from this continual series of revolts and rebellions
that, however mild had been the sway of Assyria over her Phœnician
subjects in the earlier times, it had by degrees become a hateful and
a grinding tyranny. Commercial states, bent upon the accumulation of
wealth, do not without grave cause take up arms and affront the perils
of war, much less do so when their common sense must tell them that
success is almost absolutely hopeless, and that failure will bring
about their destruction. The Assyrians were a hard race. Such
tenderness as they ever showed to any subject people was, we may be
sure, in every case dictated by policy. While their power was
unsettled, while they feared revolts, and were uncertain as to their
consequences, their attitude towards their dependents was
conciliating. When they became fully conscious of the immense
preponderance of power which they wielded, and of the inability of the
petty states of Asia to combine against them in any firm league, they
grew careless and confident, reckless of giving offence, ruder in
their behaviour, more grasping in their exactions, more domineering,
more oppressive. Prudence should perhaps have counselled the Phœnician
cities to submit, to be yielding and pliant, to cultivate the arts of
the parasite and the flatterer; but the people had still a rough
honesty about them. It was against the grain to flatter or submit
themselves; constant voyages over wild seas in fragile vessels kept up
their manhood; constant encounters with pirates, cannibals, and the
rudest possible savages made them brave and daring; exposure to storm,
and cold, and heat braced their frames; the nautical life developed
and intensified in them a love of freedom. The Phœnician of Assyrian
times was not to be coaxed into accepting patiently the lot of a
slave. Suffer as he might by his revolts, they won him a certain
respect; it is likely that they warded off many an indignity, many an
outrage. The Assyrians knew that his endurance could not be reckoned
on beyond a certain point, and they knew that in his death-throes he
was dangerous. The Phœnicians probably suffered considerably less than
the other subject nations under Assyrian rule; and the maritime
population, which was the salt of the people, suffered least of all,
since it was scarcely ever brought into contact with its nominal
rulers.


4. Phœnicia during its struggles with Babylon and Egypt
(about B.C. 635-527)

  Decline of Assyria--Scythic troubles--Fall of Nineveh--Union of
  the Phœnician cities under Tyre--Invasion of Syria by Neco--Battle
  of Megiddo--Submission of Phœnicia to Neco--Tyrian colony at
  Memphis--Conquest of Phœnicia by Nebuchadnezzar--Reign of Ithobal
  II. at Tyre--He revolts from Nebuchadnezzar but is reduced to
  subjection--Decline of Tyre--General weakness of Phœnicia under
  Babylon.

It is impossible to fix the year in which Phœnicia became independent
of Assyria. The last trace of Assyrian interference, in the way of
compulsion, with any of the towns belongs to B.C. 645, when she
severely punished Hosah and Accho. The latest sign of her continued
domination is found in B.C. 636, when the Assyrian governor of a
Phœnician town, Zimirra, appears in the list of Eponyms.[180] It must
have been very soon after this that the empire became involved in
those troubles and difficulties which led on to its dissolution.
According to Herodotus,[181] Cyaxares, king of Media, laid siege to
Nineveh in B.C. 633, or very soon afterwards. His attack did not at
once succeed; but it was almost immediately followed by the irruption
into South-western Asia of Scythic hordes from beyond the Caucasus,
which overran country after country, destroying and ravaging at their
pleasure.[182] The reality of this invasion is now generally admitted.
"It was the earliest recorded," says a modern historian, "of those
movements of the northern populations, hid behind the long mountain
barrier, which, under the name of Himalaya, Caucasus, Taurus, Hæmus,
and the Alps, has been reared by nature between the civilised and
uncivilised races of the old world. Suddenly, above this boundary,
appeared those strange, uncouth, fur-clad forms, hardly to be
distinguished from their horses and their waggons, fierce as their own
wolves or bears, sweeping towards the southern regions, which seemed
to them their natural prey. The successive invasions of Parthians,
Turks, Mongols in Asia, of Gauls, Goths, Vandals, Huns in Europe,
have, it is well said, 'illustrated the law, and made us familiar with
its operations. But there was a time in history before it had come
into force, and when its very existence must have been unsuspected.
Even since it began to operate, it has so often undergone prolonged
suspension that the wisest may be excused if they cease to bear it in
mind, and are as much startled when a fresh illustration of it occurs,
as if the like had never happened before.'[183] No wonder that now,
when the veil was for the first time rent asunder, all the ancient
monarchies of the South--Assyria, Babylon, Media, Egypt, even Greece
and Asia Minor--stood aghast at the spectacle of these savage hordes
rushing down on the seats of luxury and power."[184] Assyria seems to
have suffered from the attack almost as much as any other country. The
hordes probably swarmed down from Media through the Zagros passes into
the most fruitful portion of the empire--the flat country between the
mountains and the Tigris. Many of the old cities, rich with the
accumulated stores of ages, were besieged, and perhaps taken, and
their palaces wantonly burnt by the barbarous invaders. The tide then
swept on. Wandering from district to district, plundering everywhere,
settling nowhere, the clouds of horse passed over Mesopotamia, the
force of the invasion becoming weaker as it spread itself, until in
Syria it reached its term through the policy of the Egyptian king,
Psamatik I. That monarch bribed the nomads to advance no further,[185]
and from this time their power began to wane. Their numbers must have
been greatly thinned in the long course of battles, sieges, and
skirmishes wherein they were engaged year after year; they suffered
also through their excesses;[186] and perhaps through intestine
dissensions. At last they recognised that their power was broken. Many
bands probably returned across the Caucasus into the Steppe country.
Others submitted and took service under the native rulers of
Asia.[187] Great numbers were slain, and, except in a province of
Armenia, which thenceforward became known as Sacasêné,[188] and
perhaps in one Syrian town, which acquired the name of
Scythopolis,[189] the invaders left no permanent trace of their brief
but terrible inroad.

The shock of the Scythian irruption cannot but have greatly injured
and weakened Assyria. The whole country had been ravaged and
depopulated; the provinces had been plundered, many of the towns had
been taken and sacked, the palaces of the old kings had been
burnt,[190] and all the riches that had not been hid away had been
lost. Assyria, when the Scythian wave had passed, was but the shadow
of her former self. Her /prestige/ was gone, her armed force must have
been greatly diminished, her hold upon the provinces, especially the
more distant ones, greatly weakened. Phœnicia is likely to have
detached herself from Assyria at latest during the time that the
Scyths were dominant, which was probably from about B.C. 630 to B.C.
610. When Assyrian protection was withdrawn from Syria, as it must
have been during this period, and when every state and town had to
look solely to itself for deliverance from a barbarous and cruel
enemy, the fiction of a nominal dependence on a distant power could
scarcely be maintained. Without any actual revolt, the Phœnician
cities became their own masters, and the speedy fall of Assyria before
the combined attack of the Medes and Babylonians,[191] after the
Scythians had withdrawn, prevented for some time any interference with
their recovered independence.

A double danger, however, impended. On the one side Egypt, on the
other Babylon, might be confidently expected to lay claim to the
debatable land which nature had placed between the seats of the great
Asiatic and the great African power, and which in the past had almost
always been possessed by the one or the other of them. Egypt was the
nearer of the two, and probably seemed the most to be feared. She had
recently fallen under the power of an enterprising native monarch, who
had already, before the fall of Assyria, shown that he entertained
ambitious designs against the Palestinian towns, having begun attacks
upon Ashdod soon after he ascended the throne.[192] Babylon was,
comparatively speaking, remote and had troublesome neighbours, who
might be expected to prevent her from undertaking distant expeditions.
It was clearly the true policy for Phœnicia to temporise, to enter
into no engagements with either Babylon or Egypt, to strengthen her
defences, to bide her time, and, so far as possible, to consolidate
herself. Something like a desire for consolidation would seem to have
come over the people; and Tyre, the leading city in all but the
earliest times, appears to have been recognised as the centre towards
which other states must gravitate, and to have risen to the occasion.
If there ever was such a thing as a confederation of all the Phœnician
cities, it would seem to have been at this period. Sidon forgot her
ancient rivalry, and consented to furnish the Tyrian fleet with
mariners.[193] Arvad gave not only rowers to man the ships, but also
men-at-arms to help in guarding the walls.[194] The "ancients of
Gebal" lent their aid in the Tyrian dockyards.[195] The minor cities
cannot have ventured to hold aloof. Tyre, as the time approached for
the contest which was to decide whether Egypt or Babylon should be the
great power of the East, appears to have reached the height of her
strength, wealth, and prosperity. It is now that Ezekial says of her--
"O Tyrus, thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I
sit in the seat of God in the midst of the seas--Behold, thou art
wiser than Daniel, there is no secret that they can hide from thee:
from thy wisdom and with thine understanding hast thou gotten thee
riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: by thy
great wisdom and by thy traffick thou hast increased thy riches, and
thy heart is lifted up because of thy riches"[196]; and again, "O thou
that are situated at the entry of the sea, which art the merchant of
the peoples unto many isles, thus saith the Lord God, Thou, O Tyre,
hast said, I am perfect in beauty. Thy borders are in the heart of the
sea; thy builders have perfected thy beauty. They have made all thy
planks of fir-trees from Senir; they have taken from Lebanon cedars to
make masts for thee; of the oaks of Bashan have they made thine oars;
they have made thy benches of ivory, inlaid in boxwood, from the isles
of Kittim . . . The ships of Tarshish were thy caravans for thy
merchandise; and thou wast replenished, and made very glorious in the
heart of the sea."[197]

The first to strike of the two great antagonists was Egypt. Psamatik
I., who was advanced in years at the time of Assyria's downfall,[198]
died about B.C. 610, and was succeeded by a son still in the full
vigour of life, the brave and enterprising Neco. Neco, in B.C. 608,
having made all due preparations, led a great expedition into
Palestine,[199] with the object of bringing under his dominion the
entire tract between the River of Egypt (Wady el Arish) and the Middle
Euphrates. Already possessed of Ashdod[200] and perhaps also of
Gaza[201] and Askelon,[202] he held the keys of Syria, and could have
no difficulty in penetrating along the coast route, through the rich
plain of Sharon, to the first of the mountain barriers which are
interposed between the Nile and the Mesopotamian region. His famous
fleet[203] would support him along the shore, at any rate as far
Carmel; and Dor and Accho would probably be seized, and made into
depôts for his stores and provisions. The powerful Egyptian monarch
marching northward with his numerous and well-disciplined army, partly
composed of native troops, partly of mercenaries from Asia Minor,
Greeks and Carians, probably did not look to meet with any opposition,
till, somewhere in Northern Syria, he should encounter the forces of
Babylonia, which would of course be moved westward to meet him. What
then must have been his surprise when he found the ridge connecting
Carmel with the highland of Samaria occupied by a strong body of
troops, and his further progress barred by a foe who had appeared to
him too insignificant to be taken into account? Josiah, the Jewish
monarch of the time, grandson of Manasseh and great-grandson of
Hezekiah, who, in the unsettled state of Western Asia, had united
under his dominion the entire country of the twelve tribes,[204] had
quitted Jerusalem, and thrown himself across the would-be conqueror's
path in the strong and well-known position of Megiddo. Here, in remote
times, had the great Thothmes met and defeated the whole force of
Syria and Mesopotamia under the king of Kadesh;[205] here had Deborah
and Barak, the son of Abinoam, utterly destroyed the mighty army of
Jabin, king of Canaan, under Sisera.[206] Here now the gallant, if
rash, Judæan king elected to take his stand, moved either by a sense
of duty, because he regarded himself as a Babylonian feudatory, or
simply determined to defend the Holy Land against any heathen army
that, without permission, trespassed on it. In vain did Neco seek to
induce Josiah to retire and leave the way open, by assuring him that
he had no hostile intentions against Judæa, but was marching on
Carchemish by the Euphrates, there to contend with the
Babylonians.[207] The Jewish king persisted in his rash enterprise,
and Neco was forced to brush him from his path. His seasoned and
disciplined troops easily overcame the hasty levies of Josiah; and
Josiah himself fell in the battle.

We have no details with respect to the remainder of the expedition.
Neco, no doubt, pressed forward through Galilee and Cœle-Syria towards
the Euphrates. Whether he had to fight any further battles we are not
informed. It is certain that he occupied Carchemish,[208] and made it
his headquarters, but whether it submitted to him, or was besieged and
taken, is unknown. All Syria, Phœnicia, and Palestine were overrun,
and became temporarily Egyptian possessions.[209] But Phœnicia does
not appear to have been subdued by force. Tyrian prosperity continued,
and the terms on which Phœnicia stood towards Egypt during the
remainder of Neco's reign were friendly. Phœnicians at Neco's request
accomplished the circumnavigation of Africa;[210] and we may suspect
that it was Neco who granted to Tyre the extraordinary favour of
settling a colony in the Egyptian capital, Memphis.[211] Probably
Phœnicia accepted at the hands of Neco the same sort of position which
she had at first occupied under Assyria, a position, as already
explained, satisfactory to both parties.

But the glory and prosperity which Egypt had thus acquired were very
short-lived. Within three years Babylonia asserted herself. In B.C.
605, the crown prince, Nebuchadnezzar, acting on behalf of his father,
Nabopolassar, who was aged and infirm,[212] led the forces of Babylon
against the audacious Pharaoh, who had dared to affront the "King of
kings," "the Lord of Sumir and Accad," had taken him off his guard,
and deprived him of some of his fairest provinces. Babylonia, under
Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, was no unworthy successor of the
mighty power which for seven hundred years had held the supremacy of
Western Asia. Her citizens were as brave; her armies as well
disciplined; her rulers as bold, as sagacious, and as unsparing.
Habakkuk's description of a Babylonian army belongs to about this
date, and is probably drawn from the life--"Lo, I raise up the
Chaldæans, that bitter and hasty nation, which shall march through the
breadth of the land, to possess the dwelling-places that are not
theirs. They are terrible and dreadful; from them shall proceed
judgment and captivity; their horses are swifter than leopards, and
are more fierce than the evening wolves; and their horsemen shall
spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall
fly as the eagle that hasteth to eat. They shall come all for
violence; their faces shall sup as the east wind, and they shall
gather the captivity as the sand. And they shall scoff at kings, and
princes shall be a scorn unto them; they shall derive every
stronghold; for they shall heap dust, and take it."[213] Early in the
year B.C. 605 the host of Nebuchadnezzar appeared on the right bank of
the Euphrates, moving steadily along its reaches, and day by day
approaching nearer and nearer to the great fortress in and behind
which lay the army of Neco, well ordered with shield and buckler, its
horses harnessed, and its horsemen armed with spears that had been
just furbished, and protected by helmets and brigandines.[214] One of
the "decisive battles of the world" was impending. If Egypt conquered,
Oriental civilisation would take the heavy immovable Egyptian type;
change, advance, progress would be hindered; sacerdotalism in
religion, conventionalism in art, pure unmitigated despotism in
government would generally prevail; all the throbbing life of Asia
would receive a sudden and violent check; Semitism would be thrust
back; Aryanism, just pushing itself to the front, would shrink away;
the monotonous Egyptian tone of thought and life would spread, like a
lava stream, over the manifold and varied forms of Asiatic culture;
crushing them out, concealing them, making them as though they had
never been. The victory of Babylon, on the other hand, would mean room
for Semitism to develop itself, and for Aryanism to follow in its
wake; fresh stirs of population and of thought in Asia; further
advances in the arts; variety, freshness, growth; the continuance of
the varied lines of Oriental study and investigation until such time
as would enable Grecian intellect to take hold of them, sift them, and
assimilate whatever in them was true, valuable, and capable of
expansion.

We have no historical account of the great battle of Carchemish.
Jeremiah, however, beholds it in vision. He sees the Egyptians
"dismayed and turned away back--their mighty ones are beaten down, and
are fled apace, and look not back, since fear is round about
them."[215] He sees the "swift flee away," and the "mighty men"
attempting to "escape;" but they "stumble and fall toward the north by
the river Euphrates."[216] "For this is the day of the Lord God of
hosts, a day of vengeance, that He may avenge Him of His adversaries;
and the sword devours, and it is satiate and made drunk with their
blood, for the Lord God of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country
by the river Euphrates."[217] The "valiant men" are "swept away"--
"many fall--yea, one falls upon another, and they say, Arise and let
us go again to our own people, and to the land of our nativity from
the oppressing sword."[218] Nor do the mercenaries escape. "Her hired
men are in the midst of her, like fatted bullocks; for they also are
turned back, and are fled away together; they did not stand because
the day of their calamity was come upon them, and the time of their
visitation."[219] The defeat was, beyond a doubt, complete,
overwhelming. The shock of it was felt all over the Delta, at Memphis,
and even at distant Thebes.[220] The hasty flight of the entire
Egyptian host left the whole country open to the invading army. "Like
a whirlwind, like a torrent, it swept on. The terrified inhabitants
retired into the fortified cities,"[221] where for the time they were
safe. Nebuchadnezzar did not stop to commence any siege. He pursued
Neco up to the very frontier of Egypt, and would have continued his
victorious career into the Nile valley, had not important intelligence
arrested his steps. His aged father had died at Babylon while he was
engaged in his conquests, and his immediate return to the capital was
necessary, if he would avoid a disputed succession.[222] Thus matters
in Syria had to be left in a confused and unsettled state, until such
time as the Great King could revisit the scene of his conquests, and
place them upon some definite and satisfactory footing.

On the whole, the campaign had, apparently, the effect of drawing
closer the links which united Phœnicia with Egypt.[223] Babylon had
shown herself a fierce and formidable enemy, but had disgusted men
more than she had terrified them. It was clear enough that she would
be a hard mistress, a second and crueller Assyria. There was thus, on
Nebuchadnezzar's departure, a general gravitation of the Syrian and
Palestinian states towards Egypt, since they saw in her the only
possible protector against Babylon, and dreaded her less than they did
the "bitter and hasty nation."[224] Neco, no doubt, encouraged the
movement which tended at once to strengthen himself and weaken his
antagonist; and the result was that, in the course of a few years,
both Judæa and Phœnicia revolted from Nebuchadnezzar, and declared
themselves independent. Phœnicia was still under the hegemony of Tyre,
and Tyre had at its head an enterprising prince, a second
Ithobal,[225] who had developed its resources to the uttermost, and
was warmly supported by the other cities.[226] His revolt appears to
have taken place in the year B.C. 598, the seventh year of
Nebuchadnezzar.[227] Nebuchadnezzar at once marched against him in
person. The sieges of Tyre, Sidon, and Jerusalem were formed.
Jerusalem submitted almost immediately.[228] Sidon was taken after
losing half her defenders by pestilence;[229] but Tyre continued to
resist for the long space of thirteen years.[230] The continental city
was probably taken first. Against this Nebuchadnezzar could freely
employ his whole force--his "horses, his chariots, his companies, and
his much people"--he could bring moveable forts close up to the walls,
and cast up banks against them, and batter them with his engines, or
undermine them with spade and mattock. When a breach was effected, he
could pour his horse into the streets, and ride down all opposition.
It is the capture of the continental city which Ezekiel describes when
he says:[231] "Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will bring upon
Tyrus Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the
north, with horses and with chariots, and with horsemen, and
companies, and much people. He shall slay with the sword thy daughters
in the field; and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount
against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee. And he shall set
engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break
down thy towers. By reason of the abundance of his horses, their dust
shall cover thee; thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horseman,
and of the wheels and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy
gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach. With the
hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay
thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the
ground. And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of
thy merchandise; and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy
pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy
dust in the midst of the water." But the island city did not escape.
When continental Phœnicia was reduced, it was easy to impress a fleet
from maritime towns; to man it, in part with Phœnicians, in part with
Babylonians, no mean sailors,[232] and then to establish a blockade of
the isle. Tyre may more than once have crippled and dispersed the
blockading squadron; but by a moderate expenditure fresh fleets could
be supplied, while Tyre, cut off from Lebanon, would find it difficult
to increase or renew her navy. There has been much question whether
the island city was ultimately captured by Nebuchadnezzar or no; but
even writers who take the negative view[233] admit that it must have
submitted and owned the suzerainty of its assailant. The date of the
submission was B.C. 585.

Thus Tyre, in B.C. 585, "fell from her high estate." Ezekiel's
prophecies were fulfilled. Ithobal II., the "prince of Tyrus" of those
prophecies,[234] whose "head had been lifted up," and who had said in
his heart, "I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the
waters," who deemed himself "wiser than Daniel," and thought that no
secret was hid from him, was "brought down to the pit," "cast to the
ground," "brought to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them
that beheld him."[235] Tyre herself was "broken in the midst of the
seas."[236] A blight fell upon her. For many years, Sidon, rather than
Tyre, became once more the leading city of Phœnicia, was regarded as
pre-eminent in naval skill,[237] and is placed before Tyre when the
two are mentioned together.[238] Internal convulsion, moreover,
followed upon external decline. Within ten years of the death of
Ithobal, the monarchy came to an end by a revolution,[239] which
substituted for Kings Suffetes or Shophetim, "judges," officers of an
inferior status, whose tenure of office was not very assured. Ecnibal,
the son of Baslach, the first judge, held the position for no more
than two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdæus, who followed him, ruled
for ten months; Abbarus, a high priest, probably of Melkarth, for
three months. Then, apparently to weaken the office, it was shared
between two, as at Carthage, and Mytgon (perhaps Mattan), together
with Ger-ashtoreth, the son of Abd-elim, judged Tyre for six years.
But the partisans of monarchy were now recovering strength; and the
reign of a king, Balator, was intruded at some point in the course of
the six years' judgeship. Judges were then abolished by a popular
movement, and kings of the old stock restored. The Tyrians sent to
Babylon for a certain Merbal, who must have been either a refugee or a
hostage at the court of Neriglissar. He was allowed to return to Tyre,
and, being confirmed in the sovereignty, reigned four years. His
brother, Eirom, or Hiram, succeeded him, and was still upon the throne
when the Empire of Babylon came to an end by the victory of Cyrus over
Nabonidus (B.C. 538).

Phœnicia under the Babylonian rule was exceptionally weak. She had to
submit to attacks from Egypt under Apries, which fell probably in the
reign of Baal over Tyre, about B.C. 565. She had also to submit to the
loss of Cyprus under Amasis,[240] probably about B.C. 540, or a little
earlier, when the power of Babylon was rapidly declining. She had
been, from first to last, an unwilling tributary of the Great Empire
on the Lower Euphrates, and was perhaps not sorry to see that empire
go down before the rising power of Persia. Under the circumstances she
would view any chance as likely to advance her interests, and times of
disturbance and unsettlement gave her the best chance of obtaining a
temporary independence. From B.C. 538 to B.C. 528 or 527 she seems to
have enjoyed one of these rare intervals of autonomy. Egypt, content
with having annexed Cyprus, did not trouble her; Persia, engaged in
wars in the far East,[241] made as yet no claim to her allegiance. In
peace and tranquillity she pursued her commercial career, covered the
seas with her merchant vessels, and the land-routes of trade with her
caravans, repaired the damages inflicted by Nebuchadnezzar on her
cities; maintained, if she did not even increase, her naval strength,
and waited patiently to see what course events would take now that
Babylon was destroyed, and a new and hitherto unknown power was about
to assume the first position among the nations of the earth.


5. Phœnicia under the Persians
(B.C. 528-333)

  Phœnicia not claimed by Cyrus--Submits willingly to Cambyses--
  Takes part in his invasion of Egypt--Refuses to proceed against
  Carthage--Exceptional privileges enjoyed by the Phœnicians under
  the Persians--Government system of Darius advantageous to them--
  Their conduct in the Ionian revolt--In the expeditions of 
  Mardonius and Datis--In the great expedition of Xerxes--
  Interruption of the friendly relations between Phœnicia and Persia
  --Renewal of amity--Services rendered to Persia between B.C. 465
  and 392--Amicable relations with Athens--Phœnicia joins in revolt
  of Evagoras--Supports Tachos, king of Egypt--Declares herself
  independent under Tennes--Conquered and treated with great
  severity of Ochus--Sidonian dynasty of the Esmunazars.

The conquest of Babylon by Cyrus gave him, according to Oriental
notions generally, a claim to succeed to the inheritance of the entire
Babylonian empire; but the claim would remain dormant until it was
enforced. The straggling character of the territory, which was shaped
like a Greek {L}, ascending from Babylon along the course of the
Euphrates to the Armenian mountains, and then descending along the
line of the Mediterranean coast as far as Gaza or Raphia, rendered the
enforcement of the claim a work of difficulty, more especially in the
remote West, which was distant fifteen hundred miles from Persia
Proper, and more than a thousand miles from Babylon. Cyrus, moreover,
was prevented, first by wars in his immediate neighbourhood,[242] and
later on by a danger upon his north-eastern frontier,[243] from taking
the steps usually taken by a conqueror to establish his dominion in a
newly-annexed region, and thus he neither occupied Syria with troops,
nor placed it under the administration of Persian governors. The only
step which, so far as we know, he took, implying that his authority
reached so far, was the commission which he gave to Zerubbabel and the
other chiefs of the Jewish nation to proceed from Babylonia to Judæa,
and re-establish themselves, if they could, on the site of the
destroyed Jerusalem.[244] The return from the Captivity which followed
was in some sense the occupation of a portion of the extreme West by a
Persian garrison, and may be viewed as a step intended to be
"preparatory towards obtaining possession of the entire sea-
coast;"[245] but it appears to have been an isolated movement,
effected without active Persian support, and one whereby the
neighbouring countries were only slightly affected.

That Phœnicia retained her independence until the reign of Cambyses is
distinctly implied, if not actually asserted, by Herodotus.[246] She
saw without any displeasure the re-establishment in her neighbourhood
of a nation with which her intercourse had always been friendly, and
sometimes close and cordial. Tyre and Sidon vied with each other in
their readiness to supply the returned exiles with the timber which
they needed for the rebuilding of their temple and city; and once
more, as in the days of Solomon, the Jewish axes were heard amid the
groves of Lebanon, and the magnificent cedars of that favoured region
were cut down, conveyed to the coast, and made into floats or rafts,
which Phœnician mariners transported by sea to Joppa, the nearest
seaport to Jerusalem.[247] In return, the Jews willingly rendered to
the Phœnicians such an amount of corn, wine, and oil as was equivalent
in value to the timber received from them,[248] and thus the relations
between the two peoples were replaced on a footing which recalled the
time of their closest friendship, nearly five hundred years
previously.

On the death of Cyrus, and the accession of his son Cambyses, B.C.
529, the tranquillity which South-western Asia had enjoyed since the
time of the wars of Nebuchadnezzar came to an end. Cyrus had, it is
said, designed an expedition against Egypt,[249] as necessary to round
off his conquests, and Cambyses naturally inherited his father's
projects. He had no sooner mounted the throne than he commenced
preparations for an attack upon the ancient kingdom of the Pharaohs,
which, under the dynasty of the Psamatiks, had risen to something of
its early greatness, and had been especially wealthy and prosperous
under the usurper Amasis.[250] It was impossible to allow an
independent and rival monarchy so close upon his borders, and equally
impossible to shrink from an enterprise which had been carried to a
successful issue both by Assyria and by Babylon. Persian prestige
required the subjugation and absorption of a country which, though
belonging geographically to Africa, was politically and commercially
an integral part of that Western Asia over which Persia claimed a
complete and absolute supremacy.

The march upon Egypt implied and required the occupation of the
Mediterranean seaboard. No armies of any considerable size have ever
attempted to traverse the almost waterless desert which separates the
Lower Euphrates valley from the delta of the Nile. Light /corps
d'armée/ have no doubt occasionally passed from Circesium by way of
Tadmor to Damascus, and /vice versâ/;[251] but the ordinary line of
route pursued by conquerors follows the course of the Euphrates to
Carchemish, then strikes across the chalky upland in the middle of
which stands the city of Aleppo, and finally descends upon Egypt by
way of the Orontes, the Cœle-Syrian valley, and the plains of Sharon
and Philistia.[252] This was undoubtedly the line followed by
Cambyses,[253] and it necessarily brought him into contact with the
Phœnicians. The contact was not an hostile one. It would have been
madness on the part of the Phœnicians to have attempted any resistance
to the vast host with which Cambyses, we may be sure, made his
invasion, and it would have been folly on the part of Cambyses to
employ force when he could better obtain his object by persuasion. It
must have been a very special object with him to obtain the hearty
co-operation of the Phœnician naval forces in the attack which he was
meditating, since he would otherwise have had no fleet at all capable
of coping with the fleet of Egypt. Neco had made Egypt a strong naval
power;[254] Apries had contented for naval supremacy in the Eastern
Mediterranean with Tyre;[255] Amasis had made an expedition by sea
against Cyprus, had crushed whatever resistance the Cyprians were able
to offer, had permanently occupied the island,[256] and added the
Cyprian fleet to his own. Cambyses had as yet no ships, except such as
he could procure from the Greek cities of Asia Minor, which were not
likely to be very zealous in his service, since they had friends
engaged upon the other side.[257] Accordingly, the Persian monarch
seems to have made friendly overtures to the Phœnician states, which
were received with favour, and led to an arrangement satisfactory to
both parties. Phœnicia surrendered the independence which it was
impossible for her to maintain, and placed her fleet at the disposal
of Persia.[258] Persia spared her cities any occupation, imposed on
her a light tribute, and allowed her that qualified independence which
is implied in the retention of her native princes. From first to last
under the Persian /régime/, Phœnician monarchs bear rule in the
Phœnician cities,[259] and command the contingents which the cities
furnish to any combined Persian fleet.

The friendly arrangement concluded between Phœnicia and Persia was
followed, very naturally, by a further accession to the Persian power.
Cyprus, whose population was in great part Phœnician, had for
centuries been connected politically in the closest manner with the
Phœnician towns on the Asiatic mainland, especially with Tyre and
Sidon. Her enslavement by Amasis must have been hateful to her, and
she must have been only too glad to see an opportunity of shaking off
the Egyptian yoke. Accordingly, no sooner did the Phœnicians of the
mainland conclude the arrangement by which they became part and parcel
of the Persian Empire than the Cyprians followed their example, and,
revolting from Egypt, offered themselves of their own free will to
Persia.[260] Cambyses, it is needless to say, readily accepted them as
his subjects.

The invasion of Egypt could now be taken in hand with every prospect
of a successful issue. The march of the land army along the shore
would be supported by a parallel movement on the part of a powerful
fleet, which would carry its provisions and its water, explore the
country in front, and give notice of the movements of the enemy, and
of the place where they proposed to make a stand in force. When Egypt
was reached the fleet would command all the navigable mouths of the
Nile, would easily establish a blockade of all ports, and might even
mount the Nile and take a part in the siege of Memphis. It would seem
that all these services were rendered to the Persian monarch by the
great fleet which he had collected, of which the Phœnician ships were
recognised as the main strength. The rapid conquest of Egypt was in
this way much facilitated, and Cambyses within a twelvemonth found
himself in possession of the entire country within its recognised
limits of the Mediterranean and "the tower of Syêné."[261]

But the Great King was not satisfied with a single, albeit a
magnificent, achievement. He had accomplished in one short campaign
what it took the Assyrians ten years, and Nebuchadnezzar eighteen
years, to effect. But he now set his heart on further conquests. "He
designed," says Herodotus,[262] "three great expeditions. One was to
be against the Carthaginians, another against the Ammonians, and a
third against the long-lived Ethopians, who dwelt in that part of
Lybia which borders upon the southern sea." The expedition against the
Carthaginians is the only one of the three which here concerns us: it
was to be entrusted to the fleet. Instead of conducting, or sending, a
land force along the seaboard of North Africa, which was probably
known to be for the most part barren and waterless, Cambyses judged
that it would be sufficient to dispatch his powerful navy against the
Liby-Phœnician colony, which he supposed would submit or else be
subjugated. But on broaching this plan to the leaders of the fleet he
was met with a determined opposition. The Phœnicians positively
refused to proceed against their own colonists. They urged that they
were bound to the Carthaginians by most solemn oaths, and that it
would be as wicked and unnatural for them to execute the king's orders
as for parents to destroy their own children.[263] It was a bold act
to run counter to the will of a despotic monarch, especially of one so
headstrong and impetuous as Cambyses. But the Phœnicians were firm,
and the monarch yielded. "He did not like," Herodotus says, "to force
the war upon the Phœnicians, because they had surrendered themselves
to the Persians, and because on the Phœnicians his entire sea-service
depended." He therefore allowed their opposition to prevail, and
desisted from his proposed undertaking.[264]

This acquiescence in their wishes on the part of the Great King, and
his abstinence from any attempt at compulsion, would seem to have
paved the way for that thoroughly good understanding between the
suzerain power and her dependency which characterises the relations of
the two for the next century and a half, with the single exception of
one short interval. "The navy of Phœnicia became a regular and very
important part of the public power"[265] of the Persian state.
Complete confidence was felt by their Persian masters in the fidelity,
attachment, and hearty good-will of the Phœnician people. Exceptional
favour was shown them. Not only were they allowed to maintain their
native kings, their municipal administration, their national laws and
religion, but they were granted exceptional honours and exceptional
privileges and immunities. The Great King maintained a park and royal
residence in some portion of Phœnicia,[266] probably in the vicinity
of Sidon,[267] and no doubt allowed his faithful subjects to bask
occasionally in the sunshine of his presence. When the internal
organisation of the empire was taken in hand, and something
approaching to a uniform system of government established for revenue
purposes, though Phœnicia could not be excused from contributing to
the taxation of the empire, yet the burden laid upon her seems to have
been exceptionally light. United in a satrapy--the fifth--with Syria,
Cyprus, and Palestine, and taxed according to her population rather
than according to her wealth, she paid a share--probably not more than
a third or a fourth--of 350 talents,[268] or an annual contribution to
the needs of the empire amounting to no less than 30,000l. Persia,
moreover, encouraged Phœnicia to establish an internal organisation of
her own, and, under her suzerainty, Tyre, Sidon, and Aradus were
united by federal bonds, and had a common council, which met at
Tripolis, probably of three hundred members.[269] This council debated
matters in which Phœnicia generally was interested, and, in times of
disturbance, decided questions of peace and war.

The reign of Darius Hystaspis (B.C. 521-486), the successor of
Cambyses upon the Persian throne, introduced several changes into the
Persian governmental system which were of advantage to the Phœnicians.
Darius united the most distant parts of his empire by postal routes,
along which at moderate intervals were maintained post-houses, with
relays of horses,[270] primarily for the use of the government, but at
the service of the traveller or private trader when not needed for
business of state. Phœnician commerce must have been much helped by
these arrangements, which facilitated rapid communication, gave
security to lines of route which had been previously infested with
robbers, and provided resting-places for the companies of merchants
and traders, not unlike the caravanserai of modern Turkey and Persia.

Darius also established throughout his vast empire a uniform coinage,
based apparently on that which had previously prevailed in Lydia. His
"darics," as they were called by the Greeks, were, in the first
instance, gold coins of a rude type, a little heavier than our
sovereigns, weighing between 123 and 124 grains troy.[271] They bore
the figure of an archer on the obverse, and on the reverse a very
rough and primitive /quadratum incusum/. Darius must have coined them
in vast abundance, since early in the reign of his successor a single
individual of no great eminence had accumulated as many as 3,993,000
of them.[272] Subsequently to the introduction of the gold darics, a
silver coinage was issued, originally (we are told) in Egypt by a
Persian satrap called Aryandes,[273] but afterwards by the central
government. The name of "daric" was extended to these coins also,
which, however, were much larger and heavier than the gold coins,
weighing as much as 235 grains, and corresponding to the Greek
tetradrachm, and (nearly) to the Hebrew shekel. The establishment of
this excellent circulating medium, and the wide extension which it
almost immediately attained, must have given an enormous stimulus to
trade, and have been found of the greatest convenience by the
Phœnician merchants, who had no longer to carry with them the precious
metal in bars or ingots, and to weigh their gold and silver in the
balance in connection with every purchase that they made, but could
effect both sales and purchases in the simple and commodious manner
still in use among all civilised nations at the present day.

Under these circumstances we can well understand that the Phœnicians
were thoroughly satisfied with the position which they occupied under
the earlier Persian kings, and strove zealously to maintain and extend
the empire to which they owed so much. Their fidelity was put to a
crucial test after they had been subjects of Darius Hystaspis for a
little more than twenty years, and had had about fourteen or fifteen
years' experience of the advantages of his governmental system.
Aristagoras of Miletus, finding himself in a position of difficulty,
had lighted up the flames of war in Asia Minor, and brought about a
general revolt of the Greeks in those parts against the Persian power
--a revolt which spread on from the Greeks to the native Asiatics, and
in a short time embraced, not only Ionia and Æolis, but Caria, Caunus,
and almost the whole of Cyprus.[274] The bulk of the Cyprian cities
were Phœnician colonies, and the political connection between these
cities and Phœnicia was so close and of such ancient date that the
Phœnicians can scarcely have failed to be moved by their example and
by their danger. A wave of sympathy might have been expected to sweep
across the excitable people, and it would not have been surprising had
they rushed headlong into rebellion with the same impetuosity as their
Cyprian brethren. Had they done so the danger to Persia would have
been very great, and the course of the world's history might perhaps
have been differently shaped. The junction of the Phœnician fleet with
the navies of Cyprus, Ionia, Caria, and Æolis would have transferred
the complete sovereignty of the Eastern Mediterranean to the side of
the rebels.[275] The contagion of revolt would probably have spread.
Lycia and Cilicia, always eager for independence,[276] would probably
have joined the malcontents; Pamphylia, which lay between them, would
have followed their example; the entire seaboard of Asia Minor and
Syria would have been lost; Egypt would, most likely, have seen in the
crisis her opportunity, and have avenged the cruelties and insults of
Cambyses[277] by the massacre of her Persian garrison. Persia's
prosperity would have received a sudden check, from which it might
never have recovered; Greece would have escaped the ordeal of the
invasion of Xerxes; and the character of the struggle between Europe
and Asia would have been completely altered.

But the view which the Phœnicians took of their duties, or of their
interests, led them to act differently. When the Persians, anxious to
recover Cyprus, applied to the Phœnician cities for a naval force, to
transport their army from Cilica to the island, and otherwise help
them in the war, their request was at once complied with. Ships were
sent to the Cilician coast without any delay;[278] the Persian land
force was conveyed in safety across the strait and landed on the
opposite shore; the ships then rounded Cape St. Andreas and anchored
in the bay opposite Salamis, where the Ionian fleet was drawn up in
defence of the town.[279] An engagement followed--the first, so far as
we know, between Phœnicians and Greeks--wholly to the advantage of the
latter.[280] No complaint, however, is made of any lukewarmness, or
want of zeal, on the part of the Phœnicians, who seem to have been
beaten in fair fight by an enemy whom they had perhaps despised. Their
ill fortune did not lead to any very serious result, since the
Persian land force defeated the Cyprians, and thus Persia once more
obtained possession of the island.

A year or two later the Phœnicians recovered their lost laurels. In
B.C. 495 the Persians, having trampled out the flames of revolt in
Cyprus, Caria, and Caunus, resolved on a great effort to bring the war
to a close by attacking the Ionian Greeks in their own country, and
crushing the head and front of the rebellion, which was the great and
flourishing city of Miletus. Miletus lay on the southern shore of a
deep bay--the Sinus Latmicus--which penetrated the western coast of
Asia Minor in about Lat. 37º 30´, but which the deposits of the
Mæander have now filled up.[281] North-west of the town, at the
distance of about a mile, was the small island of Ladé, now a mere
hillock on the flat alluvial plain. While the Persian land force
advanced along the shore, and invested Milestus on the side towards
the continent, a combined fleet of six hundred vessels[282] proceeded
to block the entrance to the bay, and to threaten the doomed city from
the sea. This fleet was drawn from four only of the countries subject
to Persia--viz. Phœnicia, Cilicia, Cyprus, and Egypt--whereof
Phœnicia, we are told, "showed the greatest zeal,"[283] and we may
presume furnished by far the larger number of ships. On their arrival
in Milesian waters the captains found a strong naval force collected
to meet them, which rested upon the island of Ladé, and guarded the
approaches to the town. Miletus had summoned to her aid the
contingents of her various allies--Chios, Lesbos, Samos, Teos, Priene,
Erythræ, Phocæa, Myus--and had succeeded in gathering together a fleet
amounting to above three hundred and fifty vessels.[284] This time
Phœnicia did not despise her foe. Before engaging, every effort was
made to sow discord and dissension among the confederates, and induce
the Greek captains to withdraw their squadrons, or at any rate to
remain neutral in the battle.[285] Considerable effect was produced by
these machinations; and when at last the attack was made, two of the
principal of the Greek allies[286] drew off, and sailed homewards,
leaving the rest of the confederates to their fate. Yet,
notwithstanding this defection, the battle was stoutly contested by
the ships which remained, especially those of the Chians,[287] and
though a very decisive and complete victory was ultimately gained by
the Phœnicians and their allies, the cost of the victory was great.
Persia regained her naval supremacy in the Eastern Mediterranean;
Phœnicia re-established her claim to be considered the great sea power
of the time; but she lost a large number of her best vessels and
seamen, and she was taught the lesson that, to cope with Greeks, she
must have a vast superiority of force upon her side--a superiority of
not much less than three to one.

Miletus soon fell after the victory of Ladé, and the Phœnician fleet
was then employed for some time in chastising the islanders who had
taken part in the revolt, and in reducing various towns upon the
European shores of the Hellespont, the Propontis, and the Bosphorus,
including Perinthus, Selymbria, and Byzantium.[288] Miltiades, the
destined hero of Marathon, narrowly escaped capture at the hands of
the Phœnicians at this time, as he fled from his government in the
Thracian Chersonese to Athens. The vessel which bore him just escaped
into the harbour of Imbrus; but his son, Metiochus, who was on board a
worse sailer, was less fortunate. The Phœnicians captured him, and,
learning who he was, conveyed him to Darius at Susa, where he was well
treated and became a naturalised Persian.[289]

After the Ionian revolt had been completely put down and avenged, the
states subject to Persia, and the Phœnicians among them, enjoyed a
brief period of repose. But soon the restless spirit which possessed
all the earlier Persian monarchs incited Darius to carry his warlike
enterprises into "fresh fields and pastures new." From the eastern
coast of the Ægean Sea he looked out towards a land possessing every
attraction that soil or clime could offer, fertile, rich in minerals,
and with many excellent harbours, well watered, abounding in corn and
wine and oil, in wooded hillsides, and in productive plains. According
to Herodotus,[290] he had already explored the strength and weakness
of the region by means of a commission of Persian nobles, who had
surveyed all the shores of Greece from the decks of Phœnician ships.
The result was that he coveted the possession of the land thus made
known to him, and came to a fixed resolution that he would add it to
his territories.

There were two modes by which Greece might be approached from Asia.
Bridges of boats could be thrown across the Bosphorus or the
Hellespont, mere salt rivers, scarcely more formidable than the
streams of the Euphrates and the Tigris. In this way Europe could be
invaded in force, and the army sent across the straits, could pursue
its way along the shore till it reached the rich plains of Thessaly,
and from Thessaly passed into Bœtia, Attica, and the Peloponnese. Or a
fleet, with a land force on board, might proceed from Asia Minor
across the Ægean, where the numerous islands, scattered at short
intervals, seemed to have been arranged by nature as stepping-stones,
whereby the adventurous denizens of either continent might cross
easily into the other; and a landing might be suddenly effected near
the very heart of Greece without a tenth part of the trouble that must
be taken if the other line of route were pursued. In either case the
attendance of a fleet would be necessary. If the more circuitous route
were pursued, a powerful squadron must attend the march of the army
along the shore, to convey its supplies; if the direct route were
preferred, a still larger fleet would be necessary for the conveyance,
not only of the supplies, but of the army itself. Darius gave a trial
to each of the two plans. In the year B.C. 492 he sent a fleet and
army under Mardonius by way of the Hellespont and the European coast;
but this expedition met with severe disasters, the fleet being
shattered by a storm off Mount Athos, and the land force greatly
damaged by a night attack on the part of the Thracians.[291] Two years
later he dispatched the famous expedition under Datis and Artaphernes,
which took its course through the islands, and landed perhaps 200,000
men on the plain of Marathon,[292] but being there defeated by
Miltiades, returned hastily to Asia by the sea route. The fleets
employed on both these occasions were numerous,[293] and appear to
have been collected from several of the Persian maritime states;[294]
the proportion which the several contingents bore one to another is
not stated, but there can be little doubt that the Phœnicians
contributed the greater number. We have no details of the conduct of
the Phœnicians on either occasion, beyond a casual notice that in the
expedition of Datis and Artaphernes one of their vessels plundered the
temple of Delium on the Bœotian coast opposite Chalcis, carrying off
from it an image of Apollo plated with gold.[295] The superstition of
Datis deprived them of this valuable booty; but we may safely conclude
from the anecdote that, while rendering service to Persia, the keen-
witted mariners took care not to neglect their own material interests.

In the third and greatest of the expeditions conducted by Persia
against Greece, the Phœnicians are found to have played a very
important and prominent part. Even before the expedition commenced, a
call was made upon them in connection with it for services of an
unusual character. The loss of the fleet of Mardonius off Mount Athos
induced Xerxes to determine on cutting a ship-canal through the
isthmus which joins Athos to the mainland; and his passion for great
and striking achievements caused him to project the construction of a
double bridge of boats across the Hellespont. Phœnician technical
skill was invoked for the furtherance of both objects. At Athos they
worked in conjunction with the maritime states generally, but showed
an amount of engineering knowledge far in advance of their fellow-
labourers. The others attempted to give perpendicular sides to their
portions of the excavation, but found the sides continually fall in,
and so (as Herodotus observes) "had double labour."[296] The
Phœnicians alone knew that the sides must be sloped at an angle, and,
calculating the proper slope aright, performed their share of the task
without mishap. At the Hellespont the Phœnicians had for co-partners
the Egyptians only, and the two nations appear to have displayed an
equal ability.[297] Cables were passed from shore to shore, made taut
by capstans and supported by an almost continuous line of boats;
planks were then laid upon the cables, and covered with brushwood,
while a thick layer of earth was placed upon the top. A solid causeway
was thus formed, which was guarded on either side by bulwarks of such
a height that the horses which crossed the bridge could not see over
them; and thus the cavalry and the sumpter beasts passed from one
continent to the other without a suspicion that they had ever had
anything but /terra firma/ under them. The structure served its
purpose, but was not found strong enough to defy even for a year the
forces of the winds and waves. Before the return of Xerxes, towards
the close of B.C. 480, the autumnal gales had broken it up; and the
army which accompanied him had to re-cross the strait in a number of
separate ships.[298]

The fleet which Xerxes collected to accompany his land army and take
part in his great expedition amounted, it is said, to a total of 1207
vessels.[299] Of these the Phœnician triremes were at once the most
numerous and the best. While Egypt furnished 200 ships, Cyprus 150,
Cilicia, Ionia, and the Hellespontine Greeks 100 each, and the other
maritime nations, all together, 257, Phœnicia singly contributed no
fewer than 300.[300] The superiority of the Phœnician vessels was
sufficiently shown, first by the regatta at Abydos, which was won by a
Sidonian trireme;[301] next, by the preference of Xerxes for Phœnician
over other vessels;[302] and, thirdly, by the position assigned them
at Salamis, where care was taken to pit them against the
Athenians,[303] who were recognised as superior at sea to all the
other Greeks. If the Phœnician prowess and naval skill did not succeed
in averting defeat from the Persians, we must ascribe it first to the
narrowness of the seas in which they had to engage the enemy; and,
secondly, to the still greater prowess and skill of their principal
antagonists, the Athenians, the Eginetans, and the Corinthians.

In the naval combats at Artemisium, the Egyptians, according to
Herodotus,[304] were considered to have borne off the palm on the
Persian side; but Diodorus assigns that honour to the Sidonians.[305]
At Salamis the brunt of the conflict fell on the Phœnician contingent,
which began the battle,[306] and for some time forced the Athenian
squadron to beat a retreat, but was ultimately overpowered and forced
to take to flight, after suffering great losses. A large number of the
ships were sunk; several were taken by the Greeks; comparatively few
escaped from the battle without serious injury.[307] Xerxes, however,
who from his silver-footed throne on Mount Ægaleos surveyed the
scene,[308] but, amid the general turmoil and confusion, could ill
distinguish the conduct of the several contingents, enraged at the
loss of the battle, and regarding the Phœnicians as answerable for the
unhappy result, since they formed the nucleus and chief strength of
the fleet, laid the whole blame of the failure upon them, and, on some
of the captains appearing before him to excuse themselves, had them
beheaded upon the spot.[309] At the same time he also threatened the
other Phœnician commanders with his vengeance, and so alarmed them
that, according to Diodorus,[310] they quitted the fleet and sailed
away to Asia.

This harsh and unjust treatment seems to have led to an estrangement
between the Persians and the foremost of the naval nations subject to
them, which lasted for fifteen years. The Persians naturally
distrusted those whom they had injured, and were unwilling to call
them in to their aid. The Phœnicians probably brooded over their
wrongs, and abstained from volunteering an assistance which they were
not asked to furnish. The war between Persia and Greece continued, and
was transferred from Europe to Asia, but no Phœnicians are mentioned
as taking part in it. The Phœnician ships retired from Samos on the
approach of the Greek fleet under Leotychides.[311] No Phœnicians
fought at Mycale. None are heard of as engaged at Sestos, or
Byzantium, or Eïon, or Doriscus, or even Phaselis. It was not until--
in B.C. 465--the war passed from the Ægean to the southern coast of
Asia Minor, and their dependency, Cyprus, was threatened, that the
Phœnicians again appeared upon the scene, and mustered in strength to
the support of their Persian suzerain.

The Persian fleet which fought at the Eurymedon is said to have
consisted of three hundred and forty vessels, drawn from the three
subject nations of the Phœnicians, the Cyprians, and the
Cilicians.[312] It was under the command of Tithraustes, a son of
Xerxes. Cimon, who led the fleet of the Athenians and their allies,
attacked it with a force of 250 triremes, of which Athens had
furnished the greater number. The battle was contested with extreme
obstinacy on both sides; but at length the Athenians prevailed, and
besides destroying a large number of the enemy's vessels, took as many
as a hundred with their crews on board. At the same time a land
victory was gained over the Persian troops. The double exploit was
regarded as one of the most glorious in the annals of Greece, and was
commemorated at Delos by a tablet with the following
inscription:--[313]

  Since first the sea Europe from Asia severed,
    And Mars to rage 'mid humankind began,
  Never was such a blow as this delivered
    On land and sea at once by mortal man.
  These heroes did to death a host of Medes
    Near Cyprus, and then captured with their crews
    Five score Phœnician vessels; at the news
  All Asia groaned, hard hit by such brave deeds.

It is scarcely necessary to follow further in detail the services
which Phœnicia rendered to Persia as her submissive and attached ally.
For the space of about seventy-five years from the date of the
engagement at the Eurymedon (B.C. 465-390), the Phœnicians continued
to hold the first place among the Persian naval states, and to render
their mistress effective help in all her naval enterprises. They
protected Cyprus and Egypt from the Athenian attacks, bore their part
in the war with Amyrtæus and Inaros, and more than once inflicted
severe blows upon the Athenian navy.[314] It was his command of a
Phœnician fleet amounting to nearly a hundred and fifty triremes which
enabled Tissaphernes to play so influential a part in Asia Minor
during the later years of the Peloponnesian war. It was the presence
of their ships at Cnidus which, in B.C. 394, turned the scale between
Athens and Sparta, enabling the Athenians to recover the naval
supremacy which they had lost at Ægos-Potami. It was the appearance of
a Phœnician fleet in Greek waters[315] which, in the following year,
gave an opportunity to the Athenians to rebuild their "Long Walls,"
alarmed Sparta for her own safety, and extorted from her fears--in
B.C. 387--the agreement known as "the Peace of Antalcidas." Persia
owed to her Phœnician subjects the glory of recovering complete
possession of Asia Minor, and of being accepted as a sort of final
arbiter in the quarrels of the Grecian states. From B.C. 465 to B.C.
392 Phœnicia served Persia with rare fidelity, never hesitating to
lend her aid, and never showing the least inclination to revolt.

It was probably under these circumstances, when Athens owed the
recovery of her greatness in no small measure to the Phœnicians, that
those relations of friendship and intimacy were established between
the two peoples of which we have evidence in several inscriptions.
Phœnicians settled in Attica, particularly at Phalerum and the Piræus,
and had their own places of worship and interment. Six sepulchral
inscriptions have been found, either in Athens itself or at the
Piræus,[316] five of them bilingual,[317] which mark the interment in
Attic soil of persons whose nationality was Phœnician. They had
monuments erected over them, generally of some pretension, which must
have obtained as much respect as the native tombstones, since
otherwise they could not have endured to our day. There is also at the
Piræus an altar,[318] which a Phœnician must have erected and
dedicated to a Phœnician god, whom he worshipped on Attic soil
apparently without let or hindrance. The god's name is given as
"Askum-Adar," a form which does not elsewhere recur, but which is
thought to designate the god elsewhere called Sakon, who corresponded
to the Grecian Hermes.[319] Moreover, there is evidence of the
Phœnicians having worshipped two other deities in their Attic abodes,
one a god who corresponded to the Greek Poseidon and the Roman
Neptune, the other the Babylonian and Assyrian Nergal. Among the lost
orations of Deniarchus was one delivered by that orator on the
occasion of the suit between the people of Phalerum and the Phœnician
inhabitants of the place with respect to the priesthood of
Poseidon;[320] and a sepulchral monument at the Piræus was erected to
Asepta, daughter of Esmun-sillem, of Sidon, by Itten-bel, son of
Esmun-sibbeh, high priest of the god Nergal.[321] It appears further
from the Greek inscription, edited by Böckh,[322] that about this time
(B.C. 390-370) a decree was promulgated by the Council {bonle} of
Athens whereby the relation of Proxenia was established between Strato
(Abd-astartus), king of Sidon, and the Athenian people, and all
Sidonians sojourning in Attica were exempted from the tax usually
charged upon foreign settlers, from the obligation of the Choregia,
and from all other contributions to the state.

The power of Persia began about this time to decline, and the
Phœnicians seem to have wavered in their allegiance. In B.C. 406 or
405 Egypt shook off the Persian yoke, and established her independence
under a native sovereign.[323] Soon afterwards, probably in B.C. 392
or 391, Evagoras, a Cypriot Greek, who claimed descent from Teucer,
inaugurated a revolution at Salamis in Cyprus, where he slew the
Phœnician monarch, Abdemon, who held his throne under Persia, and,
himself mounting the throne, proceeded to reduce to subjection the
whole island.[324] Vast efforts were made to crush him, but for ten
years he defied the power of Persia, and maintained himself as an
independent monarch.[325] Even when finally he made his submission, it
was under an express stipulation that he should retain his royal
dignity, and be simply bound to pay his tribute regularly, and to
render such obedience as subject kings commonly paid to their
suzerain.[326]

In the course of his resistance to Persia, it is beyond question that
Evagoras received a certain amount of support from Phœnicia; but the
circumstances under which the support was given was doubtful.
According to Isocrates,[327] he equipped a large fleet, and attacked
the Phœnicians on the mainland with so much vigour as even to take the
great city of Tyre by assault; but Diodorus says nothing of the
attack, and it is conjectured that the contagion of revolt, which
certainly affected, more or less, Cyprus, Cilicia, Caria, and some of
the Syrian Arabs,[328] spread also thus early to Phœnicia, and that
"the surrender of Tyre was a voluntary defection."[329] In that case,
we must view Phœnicia, or at any rate a portion of it, as having
detached itself from Persia, about B.C. 390, sixty years before the
final break-up of the Empire.

But the disaffection of Phœnicia does not become open and patent until
about thirty years later. The decline of Persia had continued. In B.C.
375 an attempt to recover Egypt, for which a vast armament had been
collected under Pharnabazus and Iphicrates, completely failed.[330]
Nine years afterwards, in B.C. 366, the revolt of the satraps began.
First Ariobarzanes, satrap of Phrygia, renounced his allegiance, and
defended himself with success against Autophradutes, satrap of Lydia,
and Mausolus, native king of Caria under Persia. Then Aspis, who held
a part of Cappadocia, revolted and maintained himself by the help of
the Pisidians, until he was overpowered by Datames. Next Datames
himself, satrap of the rest of Cappadocia, understanding that the mind
of the Persian king was poisoned against him, made a treaty with
Ariobarzanes, and assumed an independent attitude in his own province.
Finally, in B.C. 362, there seems to have been something like a
general revolt of the western provinces, in which the satraps of
Mysia, Phrygia, and Lydia, Mausolus prince of Caria, and the peoples
of Lycia, Pisidia, Pamphylia, Cilicia, and Syria participated.[331]
Then, if not earlier, Phœnicia openly threw in her lot with the
disaffected;[332] refused her tribute like the others, and joined her
forces with theirs. Nor, when the rebellion collapsed, did she at once
return to her allegiance. When Tachos, native king of Egypt, in B.C.
361, having secured the services of Agesilaus and Chabrias, advanced
boldly into Syria, with the object of enlarging his own dominions at
the expense of Persia, he was received with favour by the Phœnicians,
who were quite willing to form a portion of his empire. But the
rebellion of Nectanebo forced Tachos to relinquish his projects,[333]
and the dominion over the Phœnician cities seems to have reverted to
Persia without any effort on her part.

In this condition matters remained till about the year B.C. 351, when
Sidon, feeling herself aggrieved by the conduct of the Persian
authorities at Tripolis,[334] where the general assembly of the
Phœnicians held its meetings, boldly raised the standard of revolt
against Persia under Tennes, or Tabnit II., and induced the Phœnicians
generally to declare themselves independent. Alliance was at once
formed with the Egyptian king, Nekht-nebf, or Nectanebo II., who sent
a body of 4,000 Greek mercenaries, under Mentor the Rhodian, to the
aid of Tennes.[335] Hostilities commenced by the Phœnicians expelling
or massacring the Persian garrisons, devastating the royal park or
paradise, and burning the stores of forage collected for the use of
the Persian cavalry.[336] An attempt made by two satraps--Belesys of
Syria and Mazæus of Cilicia--to crush the revolt was completely
defeated by Tennes, with the aid of Mentor and his Greeks, who gained
a decisive victory over the satraps, and drove the Persians out of
Phœnicia.[337] Cyprus then joined the rebels. The nine principal
cities made common cause, expelled the Persians, and declared
themselves free states, under their respective native kings.[338]
Ochus, the Persian king, was at last roused to exert himself.
Collecting an army of 300,000 foot and 30,000 horse, supported by 300
triremes and 500 transports or provision-ships,[339] he proceeded to
the west in person, determined to inflict condign punishment on the
rebels, and to recover to the empire, not only Cyprus and Phœnicia,
but also the long-lost Egypt.

Tennes, on his part, had done his best in the way of preparations for
defence. He had collected a fleet of above a hundred ships--triremes
and quinqueremes,[340] the latter now heard of for the first time in
Asiatic warfare. He had strengthened the fortifications of Sidon,
surrounding the town with a triple ditch of great width and depth, and
considerably raising the height of the walls.[341] He had hired Greek
mercenaries to the number of six thousand, raising thus the number in
his service to ten thousand in all, had armed and drilled the most
active and athletic of the citizens, and had collected vast stores of
provisions, armour, and weapons. But the advance of the Persian
monarch at the head of so large a force filled Tennes with dismay and
despair. Successful resistance was, he thought, impossible; and with a
selfishness and a cowardice that must ever make him rank among the
most infamous of men, he resolved, if possible, to purchase his own
pardon of the King by delivering to his vengeance the entire body of
his fellow-countrymen. Accordingly, after handing over to him a
hundred of the principal citizens, who were immediately transfixed
with javelins, he concerted measures with Mentor for receiving the
Persians within the walls. While the arrangements were proceeding,
five hundred of the remaining citizens issued forth from one of the
gates of the town, with boughs of supplication, as a deputation to
implore the mercy of Ochus, but only to suffer the same fate as their
fellow-townsmen. The Persians were then received within the walls; but
the citizens, understanding what their fate was to be, resolved to
anticipate it. They had already burnt their ships, to prevent any
desertion. Now they shut themselves up, with their wives and children,
in their houses, and applying the torch to their dwellings lighted up
a general conflagration. More than forty thousand persons perished in
the flames. Ochus sold the ruins at a high price to speculators, who
calculated on reimbursing themselves by the treasures which they might
dig out from among the ashes. As for Tennes, it is satisfactory to
find that a just vengeance overtook him. The treachery which he had
employed towards others was shown also to himself. Ochus, who had
given him a solemn promise that he would spare his life, no sooner
found that there was nothing more to be gained by letting him live,
than he relentlessly put him to death.[342]

No further resistance was made by the Phœnician cities. Ochus marched
on against Egypt and effected its reconquest.[343] The Cyprian revolt
was put down by the Prince of Caria, Istricus.[344] A calm, prelude to
the coming storm, settled down upon Persia; and Phœnicia participated
in the general tranquillity. The various communities, exhausted by
their recent efforts, and disappointed with the result, laid aside
their political aspirations, and fell back upon their commercial
instincts. Trade once more flourished. Sidon rose again from her
ashes, and recovered a certain amount of prosperity. She held the
coast from Leontopolis to Ornithonpolis, and possessed also the
dependency of Dor;[345] but she had lost Sarepta to Tyre,[346] which
stepped into the foremost place among the cities on her fall, and
retained it until destroyed by Alexander. The other towns which still
continued to be of some importance were Aradus, and Gebal or Byblus.
These cities, like Tyre and Sidon, retained their native kings,[347]
who ruled their several states with little interference from the
Persians. The line of monarchs may be traced at Sidon for five
generations, from the first Esmunazar, who probably reigned about B.C.
460-440, through three generations and four kings, to the second
Strato, the contemporary of Alexander.[348] The first Esmunazar was
succeeded by his son, Tabnit, about B.C. 440. Tabnit married his
sister, Am-Ashtoreth, priestess of Ashtoreth, and had issue, two sons,
Esmunazar II., whose tomb was found near Sidon by M. de Vogüé in the
year 1855, and Strato I. Esmunazar II. is thought to have died about
B.C. 400, and to have been succeeded by his brother Strato, the
Proxenus of Athens, who reigned till B.C. 361. On Strato's death, his
son, the second Tabnit--known to the Greeks as Tennes--mounted the
throne, and reigned till B.C. 345, when he was put to death by Ochus.
A second Strato, the son of Tennes, then became king, and retained his
sovereignty till after the battle of Issus[349] (B.C. 333).


6. Phœnicia in the time of Alexander the Great
(B.C. 333-323)

  Alexander's invasion of Asia--Preparations made to resist it,
  insufficient--What should have been done--Movements of Memnon in
  B.C. 333--His death--Paralysis of the Persian fleet--Attack on
  Phœnicia after Issus--Submission of all the cities but Tyre--Siege
  of Tyre--Fall of the city--Cruel treatment of the inhabitants.

The invasion of Asia by Alexander the Great, though it found the
Persians unready, was by no means of the nature of a surprise. The
design had been openly proclaimed by Philip in the year B.C. 338, when
he forced the Grecian States to appoint him generalissimo of their
armies, which he promised to lead to the conquest of the East.[350]
Darius Codomannus had thus ample warning of what he had to expect, and
abundant opportunity to make the fullest preparations for defence.
During the years B.C. 338 and 337, while Philip was still alive, he
did do something towards organising defensive measures, collected
troops and ships, and tried to foment discontent and encourage anti-
Macedonian movements in Greece.[351] But the death of Philip by the
dagger of Pausanias caused him most imprudently to relax his efforts,
to consider the danger past, and to suspend the operations, which he
had commenced, until he should see whether Alexander had either the
will or the power to carry into effect his father's projects. The
events of the years B.C. 336 and 335, the successes of Alexander in
Thrace, Illyria, and Bœotia,[352] woke him from his fool's paradise to
some sense of the realities of the situation. In B.C. 335 the
preparations for defence were resumed. Orders were issued to the
satraps of Phrygia and Lydia to draw together their troops towards the
north-western corner of Asia Minor, and to take the offensive against
the Macedonian force which had crossed the straits before Philip's
death. The Persian garrisons in this quarter were strongly reinforced
with troops of a good quality, drawn from the remoter provinces of the
empire, as from Persia Proper, Media, Hyrcania, and Bactria. Notice
was given to the Phœnicians to prepare a considerable fleet, and hold
it in readiness for active service. Above all, Memnon the Rhodian was
given a command on the Asiatic seaboard, and entrusted with a body of
five thousand Greek mercenaries, which he was empowered to use at his
discretion.[353]

But these steps, though in the right direction, were quite inadequate
under the circumstances. Everything that was possible should have been
done to prevent Alexander from crossing to Asia in force. The fleet
should not only have been commanded to hold itself in readiness, but
should have been brought up. Four hundred or five hundred
vessels,[354] from Phœnicia, Cyprus, Egypt, Lycia, and Cilicia, should
have been moved into the northern Egean and the Propontis, and have
kept watch on every Grecian port. Alexander was unable to muster for
the transport of his army across the Straits a larger number than 160
triremes.[355] Persia should have met them with a fleet three times as
large. Had Memnon been given from the first a free hand at sea,
instead of satrapial power on land, it is quite conceivable that the
invasion of Asia by Alexander might have proved as abortive an
enterprise as the contemplated invasion of England by Napoleon.

As it was, the fleet of Persia, composed mainly of Phœnician vessels,
did not appear in the northern Egean waters until some weeks after
Alexander had transported his grand army into Asia, and fought at the
Granicus, so that when it arrived it was of comparatively little
service. Too late even to save Miletus, it had to be a tame spectator
of the siege and capture of that important town.[356] It was then
withdrawn to Halicarnassus, where its presence greatly helped the
defence, but not to the extent of wholly baffling the besiegers.
Halicarnassus fell, like Miletus, after a while, being entered from
the land side; but the fleet saved the troops, the stores, and the
inhabitants.[357]

During the early part of the ensuing year, B.C. 333, while Alexander
was engaged in conquering the interior of Asia Minor, the Persian
fleet under Memnon at last took the aggressive, and, advancing
northwards, employed itself in establishing Persian influence over the
whole of the Egean, and especially in reducing the important islands
of Chios and Lesbos.[358] Memnon was now in full command. Fortune
smiled on him; and it seemed more than probable that the war would be,
at least partially, transferred into Greece, where the Spartans only
waited for Memnon's appearance to commence an anti-Macedonian
movement. The presence of a powerful fleet in Greek waters, and
Memnon's almost unlimited command of Persian gold, might in a short
time have raised such a flame in Greece as to necessitate Alexander's
return in order to extinguish it.[359] The invasion of Asia might have
been arrested in mid course; Alexander might have proved as powerless
as Agesilaus to effect any great change in the relations of the two
continents; but, at the critical moment, the sudden and unexpected
death of the Rhodian chief cast all these hopes to the ground,[360]
and deprived Persia of her last chance of baffling the invader.

Thus, first by mismanagement and then by an unhappy accident, the
Phœnicians were precluded from rendering Persia any effective service
in the time of her great necessity. Wiser than Napoleon, Alexander
would not contest the sovereignty of the seas with the great naval
power of the day, and he even, when he once felt himself strongly
lodged in Asia, disbanded his naval force,[361] that so it might be
impossible for disaster at sea to tarnish his prestige. He was
convinced that Asia could be won by the land force which he had been
permitted to disembark on its shores, and probably anticipated the
transfer of naval supremacy which almost immediately followed on the
victory of Issus. The complete defeat of the great army of Codomannus,
and its retirement on the Euphrates,[362] left the entire seaboard of
Syria and Phœnicia open to him. He resolved at once to take advantage
of the opportunity, and to detach from Persia the three countries of
Phœnicia, Egypt, and Cyprus. If he could transfer to himself the
navies of these powers, his maritime supremacy would be incontestable.
He would render his communications with Macedonia absolutely secure.
He would have nothing to fear from revolt or disturbance at home,
however deeply he might plunge into the Asiatic continent. If the
worst happened to him in Asia, he would have assured himself a safe
return.

Accordingly, no sooner was the retreat of Darius upon the line of the
Euphrates, and his abandonment of Syria, ascertained, than Alexander,
after despatching a detachment of his army to Damascus, marched in
person into Phœnicia.[363] The Phœnicians were placed between two
dangers. On the one hand, Alexander might ravage their territory,
capture and pillage their cities, massacre or sell for slaves the
greater portion of their citizens, and destroy their very existence as
a people; on the other hand, Darius held as hostages for their
fidelity the crews and captains of their triremes, which formed a
portion of his fleet, and had on board a large number of their chief
men, and even some of their kings.[364] It was impossible, however, to
temporise; a choice had necessarily to be made; and when Alexander
entered Phœnicia, the cities, in almost every case, decided on
submitting to him. First Strato, the son of Ger-astartus, king of
Aradus, who was serving on board the Phœnician contingent to the
Persian fleet, went out to meet Alexander, and surrendered into his
hands the four cities of Aradus, Marathus, Sigon, and Mariamme.[365]
Then Byblus, whose king was also absent with the fleet, opened its
gates to the Macedonians.[366] Next Sidon, mindful of her recent
wrongs, sent envoys to invite Alexander's approach, and joyfully
embraced his cause.[367] Even Tyre nominally made submission, and
declared itself ready to obey Alexander's commands;[368] and the
transfer of Phœnicia to the side of Alexander might have been made
without bloodshed, had the Macedonian monarch been content to leave
their island city, which was their true capital, and their pride and
glory, unmolested. But Alexander could not brook anything that in any
degree savoured of opposition to his will. When therefore, on his
expressing a wish to sacrifice to Melkarth in their island town, the
Tyrians declined to receive him within the walls, and suggested that
his pious design might be sufficiently accomplished by his making his
intended offering in Palæ-Tyrus, where there was a temple of the same
god, which was older (they said) and more venerable than their own,
Alexander's pride was touched, and he became violently enraged.[369]
Dismissing the envoys with angry threats, he at once began
preparations for an attack upon the town.

The Tyrians have been accused of extreme rashness and folly in not
making an unqualified submission to the demands preferred by
Alexander,[370] but the reproach scarcely appears to be deserved. They
had on previous occasions resisted for years the entire power of
Assyria, and of Babylon; they naturally deemed themselves only
assailable by sea; their fortifications were of immense strength; and
they possessed a navy much superior to any of which Alexander could
boast at the time when he threatened them. Their own vessels were
eighty in number; those of their kinsmen upon the continent were
likewise eighty; Cyprus, which for centuries had been closely allied
with them, and which was more than half Phœnician in blood, could
furnish a hundred and twenty; Carthage, if she chose, could send to
their aid, without any difficulty, as many as two hundred.[371]
Alexander had never been able to collect from the Greek states which
owned his sway a fleet of more than one hundred and sixty sail; and,
having disbanded this fleet, he could not readily have mustered from
the cities and countries accessible to him, exclusive of Cyprus and
Phœnicia, so many as a hundred.[372] The Tyrians, when they took their
resolution to oppose Alexander, had a right to expect that their
kindred would either assist them, or at any rate not serve against
them, and that thus they would be sure to maintain their supremacy at
sea. As for Alexander's design to join the island Tyre to the
continent by means of a mole, they cannot have had the slightest
suspicion of it, since no work of the kind had ever previously been
accomplished, or even attempted; for the demonstration of Xerxes
against Salamis was not seriously intended.[373] They naturally
counted on the struggle being entirely by sea, and may well have
thought that on their own element they would not be worsted. Even if
the continental towns forsook them and went over to the enemy, why
might they not do as they had done in Shalmaneser's time, defeat their
unnatural countrymen, and retain their naval supremacy? Moreover, if
they made a gallant fight, might not Persia be expected to second
their efforts? Would she not attack Alexander from the flanks of
Lebanon, intercept his supplies, cut off his foragers, and make his
position untenable; the Tyrians could scarcely anticipate that Persia
would sit with folded hands, a calm spectator of a seven months'
siege, and do absolutely nothing.

Having determined on resistance to the demands of Alexander, the
Tyrians lost no time in placing their city in a position to resist
attack. They summoned their king, Azemilcus, from the Persian fleet,
and required him to hasten home with the entire squadron which he
commanded.[374] They collected triremes and lighter vessels from
various quarters. They distributed along the walls of the city upon
every side a number of engines of war, constructed to hurl darts and
stones, and amply provided them with missiles.[375] The skilled
workmen and engineers resident in the town were called upon not merely
to furnish additional engines of the old type, but to exercise their
ingenuity in devising new and unheard of structures.[376] They armed
all the young and vigorous among the people, and appointed them their
several stations at the walls. Finally, to diminish the number of
mouths to be fed, and to save themselves from distracting cares, they
sent away to Carthage a number of their aged men, their women, and
their children, who were readily received and supported by the rich
and friendly colonists.[377]

Meantime Alexander had taken his resolution. Either recollecting what
Xerxes had threatened to do at Salamis, or prompted merely by his own
inventive genius, he determined on the construction of a great mole,
or embankment, which should be carried out from the Asiatic mainland
across the half-mile of channel to the very walls of the recalcitrant
city, and should thus join the island to the Syrian shore. The width
of the embankment he fixed at two plethra, or nearly seventy
yards.[378] Material for the construction was abundant. The great city
of Palæ-Tyrus was close at hand, partly in ruins, and with many of the
houses deserted by their inhabitants. Its walls would furnish
abundance of stone, mortar, and rubble. Behind Palæ-Tyrus lay the
flanks of Lebanon, cultivated in orchards, while beyond were its dense
and inexhaustible forests of fir, pine, and cedar. Human labour could
be obtained to almost any extent, for the neighbourhood was populous,
and Alexander's authority acknowledged by all. Accordingly the work,
once commenced, for a while made fair progress. Piles were cut in the
mountain, which were driven with much ease into the soft mud of the
channel, which was shallow near the shore,[379] and completely under
the control of the Macedonians, since the Tyrian vessels could not
approach it for fear of sticking in the ooze. Between the piles,
towards the edge of the mole, were sunk stones, trunks of trees, and
material of the more solid character, while the central part was
filled up with rubble and rubbish of every sort and kind. Still, the
operation was toilsome and tedious, even from the first, while the
further that the mole was advanced into the sea, the more difficult
and dangerous became its construction. The channel deepened gradually
from a few feet towards the shore to eighteen or twenty,[380] as it
approached the island. The Tyrians in their vessels were soon able to
act. In small boats at first, and afterwards in their triremes, they
attacked and annoyed the workmen, perpetually hindered their work, and
occasionally destroyed portions of it.[381] Damage was also inflicted
by the wind and waves; and the rate of progress became, in
consequence, exceedingly slow. A strong current set through the
channel, and this was continually working its way among the
interstices of the mole, washing holes in its sides and face, and
loosening the interior of the structure. When a storm arose, the surf
broke over the top of the work, and did even greater damage, carrying
portions of the outer casing into the sea.

To meet the assaults of the Tyrian ships upon the work, the
Macedonians constructed two movable towers, well protected against
torches and weapons by curtains made of raw hides,[382] and advancing
these upon the surface of the mole to the points most threatened,
discharged from the engines which the towers contained darts and
stones of a large size against the Tyrian sailors. Thus protected, the
workmen were able to make sensible progress, and the Tyrians began to
fear that, unless they could destroy the towers, the mole would ere
long be completed. For the accomplishment of their purpose, they
resolved to employ a fire-ship.[383] Selecting one of the largest of
their horse-transports, they stowed the hold with dry brushwood and
other combustible materials; and erecting on the prow two masters,
each with a projecting arm, attached to either a cauldron, filled with
bitumen and sulphur, and with every sort of material apt to kindle and
nourish flame. By loading the stern of the transport with stones of a
large size, they succeeded in depressing it and correspondingly
elevating the prow, which was thus prepared to glide over the smooth
surface of the mole and bring itself into contact with the towers. In
the fore part of the ship were deposited a quantity of torches, resin,
and other combustibles. Watching an opportunity when the wind blew
strongly from the seaward straight upon the mole, they towed the
vessel at their best speed in the direction of the towers, set it on
fire, and then, loosing their hawsers, allowed it to dash itself upon
the work. The prow slid over the top a certain distance and then
stopped. The arms projecting from the masts broke off at the sudden
check,[384] and scattered the contents of the cauldrons around. The
towers caught fire and were at once in a blaze. The Macedonians found
it impossible to extinguish the flames, since the Tyrian triremes,
drawing close to the mole, prevented approach by flights of arrows and
other missiles. "At the same time, the full naval force of the city,
both ships and little boats, was sent forth to land men at once on all
parts of the mole. So successful was this attack, that all the
Macedonian engines were burnt--the outer woodwork which kept the mole
together was torn up in many places--and a large part of the structure
came to pieces."[385] A heavy sea, moreover, accompanied the gale of
wind which had favoured the conflagration, and penetrating the
loosened work, carried the whole into deep waters.[386]

Alexander had now seriously to consider what course he should take.
Hitherto his attempt had proved an entire failure. Should he
relinquish it? To do so would be to acknowledge himself baffled and
defeated, to tarnish the prestige which he held so dear, and to
cripple the plans that he had formed against Persia. It was simply
impossible that Alexander, being the man he was, should so act. No--he
must persevere--he must confront and overcome his difficulties--he
must repair the damages that he had suffered, restore his lost works,
and carry them out on a larger scale, and with more skill than before.
He gave orders therefore for an enlargement and alteration of the
mole, which he no longer carried across the strait in a direct line,
but inclined to the south-west,[387] so that it might meet the force
of the prevalent wind, instead of exposing its flank to the violent
gusts. He also commanded the construction of fresh towers and fresh
engines, stronger and more in number than the former ones.[388] But
this alone would not, he felt, be enough. His designs had been
frustrated hitherto solely from the fact that the Tyrians were masters
of the sea; and it was plain to him that, so long as this state of
things remained unaltered, it was next to impossible that he should
succeed. The great desideratum--the one condition of success--was the
possession of a powerful fleet. Such a fleet must be either built or
collected. Leaving therefore the restoration of the mole and the
engines to his generals, Alexander went in person to Sidon, and there
set himself to gather together as large a fleet as he could. Most
opportunely it happened that, either shortly before Alexander's
arrival or immediately afterwards, the ships of Sidon, Aradus, and
Byblus, which had been serving with the Persian naval force in the
Ægean, had been required by their respective commanders to proceed
homewards, and, to the number of eighty, had sailed into the harbour
of Sidon.[389] The kings had, in fact, deserted the Persian cause on
hearing that their cities had submitted to Alexander, and readily
placed their respective squadrons at his disposal. Further contingents
were received from other quarters--from Rhodes ten triremes, from the
seaports of Lycia the same number, from Soli and Mallus three, from
Macedonia a single penteconter.[390] The number of the vessels was
thus brought up to one hundred and four; but even with such a fleet it
would have been rash to engage the Tyrian navy; and Alexander would
probably have had to build an additional squadron had he not received,
suddenly and unexpectedly, the adhesion of the princes of Cyprus.
Cyprus, being an island, was as yet in no danger, and might have been
expected at least to remain neutral until the fate of Tyre was
decided; but, for reasons that history has not recorded, the petty
kings of the island about this time--some months after the battle of
Issus--resolved to desert Persia, to detach themselves wholly from
Tyre, and to place their navy at the disposal of the Macedonians.[391]
The number of their triremes amounted to 120; and Alexander, having
now under his command a fleet of 224 sail, could no longer feel any
doubt of being able to wrest the supremacy at sea from the unfortunate
Tyrians.

Accordingly, after allowing his ships a period of eleven days for
nautical practice, and placing on board a number of his bravest
soldiers,[392] Alexander sailed out from Sidon at the head of his
entire fleet, and made straight for Tyre in order of battle. He
himself in person commanded the right wing, the post of danger, since
it held the open sea, and had under him the bulk of the Cyprian ships,
with their commanders. Pnytagoras of Salamis and Craterus led the left
wing, which was composed mainly of the vessels furnished by the
Phœnician towns upon the mainland, and held its course at no great
distance from the shore. The Tyrians, who had received no intelligence
from without, saw with astonishment the great fleet, nearly three
times as large as their own,[393] bearing down upon them in orderly
array, and challenging them to the combat. They had not now the spirit
of ancient times, when no disparity of force dismayed them. Surprised
and alarmed, they resolved to decline a battle, to remain within their
ports, and to use their ships for blocking the entrances. Alexander,
advancing from the north, when he saw the mouth of the Sidonian
harbour, which faced northwards, strongly guarded, did not attempt to
force it, but anchored his vessels outside, and established a
blockade, the maintenance of which he entrusted to the Cyprian
squadron. The next day he ordered the Phœnician ships to proceed
southwards, and similarly block and watch the southern or Egyptian
harbour.[394] For himself, he landed upon the mole, and pitching his
tent near the south-western corner, there established himself.[395]

The mole had not advanced very much during his absence. Vast efforts
had been made to re-establish it, but they had not been attended with
any great success.[396] Whole trees, torn up by the roots, and with
their branches still adhering to them, had been dragged to the water's
edge, and then precipitated into the strait;[397] a layer of stones
and mud had been placed upon them, to solidify them into a mass; on
the top of this other trees had been placed, and the former process
repeated. But the Tyrians had met the new tactics with new methods.
They had employed divers to attach hooks to the boughs where they
projected into the sea, and by sheer force had dragged the trees out
from the superincumbent mass, bringing down in this way large portions
of the structure.[398] But with Alexander's coming, and the retirement
of the Tyrian fleet, all this was altered. Alexander's workmen were no
longer impeded, except from the town, and in a short time the mole was
completed across the channel and carried up to the very foot of the
defences. The new towers, which had replaced the burnt ones, were
brought up close to the walls, and plied the new machines which
Cyprian and Phœnician engineers had constructed for their new
master.[399] The battering of the wall began. Engines moreover of a
large size were placed on horse-transports furnished by Sidon, and on
the heavier and clumsier of the triremes, and with these attacks were
made upon the town in various places, all round the circuit of the
walls, which, if they did nothing else, served to distract the
attention of the defenders. To meet such assailants the Tyrians had
let down huge blocks of stone into the sea, which prevented the
approach of the ships, and hindered those on board from using the
battering ram. These blocks the Macedonians endeavoured to weigh up
and remove by means of cranes; but their vessels were too unsteady for
the purpose, whereupon they proceeded to anchor them. The Tyrians went
out in boats well protected, and passing under the stems and sterns of
the vessels, cut the cables, whereupon the Macedonians kept an armed
watch upon the cables in boats of their own, which the Tyrians did not
venture to attack. They were not, however, without resource even yet,
since they contrived still to cut the cables by means of divers. At
last the Macedonians bethought themselves of using chains for cables
instead of ropes; these could not be cut, and the result was that at
length they succeeded in dragging the stones away and obtaining access
to the foot of the walls wherever they pleased.[400]

Under these circumstances, threatened on every side, and feeling
almost at the last gasp, the Tyrians resolved on a final desperate
effort. They would make a bold attempt to recover the command of the
sea. As the Macedonian fleet was divided, part watching the Sidonian
and part the Egyptian harbour, they could freely select to contend
with which portion they preferred. Their choice fell upon the Cyprian
contingent, which was stationed to the north of the mole, keeping
guard on the "Portus Sidonius." This they determined to attack, and to
take, if possible, by surprise. Long previously they had spread sails
along the mouth of the harbour, to prevent their proceedings inside it
from being overlooked.[401] They now prepared a select squadron of
thirteen ships--three of them quinqueremes, three quadriremes, and
seven triremes--and silently placing on board their best sailors and
the best and bravest of their men-at-arms, waited till the hour of
noon, when the Cyprian crews would be taking their mid-day meal, and
Alexander might be expected, according to his general habit, to have
retired to his tent on the opposite side of the mole. When noon came,
still in deep silence, they issued from the harbour in single file,
each crew rowing gently without noise or splash, or a word spoken,
either by the boatswains or by anyone else. In this way they came
almost close to the Cyprians without being perceived: then suddenly
the boatswains gave out their cry, and the men cheered, and all pulled
as hard as they could, and with splash and dash they drove their ships
against the enemy's, which were inert, lying at anchor, some empty,
others hurriedly taking their crews on board. The ships of three
Cyprian kings--Pnytagoras, king of Salamis, Androcles, king of
Amathus, and Pasicrates, king of Curium[402]--were at once run down
and sunk.[403] Many others were disabled; the rest fled, pursued by
the Tyrians, and sought to reach the shore. All would probably have
been lost, had not Alexander returned from his tent earlier than
usual, and witnessed the Tyrian attack. With his usual promptitude, he
at once formed his plan. As only a portion of the Cyprian fleet had
maintained the blockade, while the remainder of their ships were lying
off the north shore of the mole with their crews disembarked, he set
to work to man these, and sent them off, as each was got ready, to
station themselves at the mouth of the harbour, and prevent any more
of the Tyrian vessels from sallying forth. He then hurried to the
southern side of the mole, where the Greco-Phœnician squadron kept
guard, and manning a certain number of the vessels,[404] sailed with
them round the western shore of the island into the northern bay,
where the Tyrians and the remnant of the Cyprian fleet were still
contending. Those in the city perceived the movement, and made every
effort to signal it to their sailors, but in vain. The noise and
uproar of the battle prevented them from hearing until it was too
late. It was not till Alexander had entered the northern bay that they
understood, and turned and fled, pursued by his ships, which captured
or disabled the greater number. The crews, however, and the men-at-
arms, escaped, since they threw themselves overboard, and easily swam
into the harbour.[405]

This was the last attempt of the Tyrians by sea. They were now
invested on every side, and hopelessly shut up within their defences.
Still, however, they made a desperate resistance. On the side of the
mole the Macedonians, having brought up their towers and battering-ram
close to the wall, attacked it with much vigour, hurling against it
great masses of stone, and by constant flights of darts and arrows
driving the defenders from the battlements.[406] At the same time the
battering-rams were actively plied, and every effort made to effect a
breach. But the Tyrians deadened the blows of the rams and the force
of the stones by letting down from the walls leathern bags filled with
sea-weed at the points assailed;[407] while, by wheels which were set
in rapid motion, they intercepted the darts and javelins wherewith
they were attacked, and broke them or diverted them from their
intended courses.[408] When boarding-bridges were thrown from the
towers to the top of the walls, and an attempt was made to pass troops
into the town across them, they flung grappling hooks among the
soldiers on the bridges, which caught in their bodies and lacerated
them, or dragged their shields from their hands, or sometimes hauled
them bodily into the air, and then dashed them against the wall or
against the ground.[409] Further, they made ready masses of red-hot
metal, and hurled them against the towers and the scaling-
parties.[410] They also heated sand over fires and poured it from the
battlements on all who approached the foot of the wall; this,
penetrating between the armour and the skin, inflicted such
intolerable pain that the sufferers were forced to tear off their
coats of mail, whereupon they were easily transfixed by arrows or long
lances.[411] With scythes they cut the ropes and thongs by means of
which the rams were worked;[412] and at last, armed with hatchets,
they sprang from the battlements upon the Macedonian boarding-bridges,
and in a hand-to-hand combat defeated and drove back their
assailants.[413] Finally, when, despite of all their efforts, the
outer wall began to give way, they constructed an inner wall to take
its place, broader and stronger than the other.[414]

Alexander, after a time, became convinced that his endeavours to take
the city from the mole were hopeless, and turned his attention to the
sea defences, north and south of the mole, which were far less strong
than those which he had hitherto been attacking.[415] He placed his
best engines and his boarding-bridges upon ships, and proceeded to
batter the sea walls in various places. On the south side, near the
Egyptian harbour, he found a weak place, and concentrating his efforts
upon it, he succeeded in effecting a large breach.[416] He then gave
orders for a general assault.[417] The two fleets were commanded to
force simultaneously the entrances to the two harbours; other vessels
to make demonstrations against the walls at all approachable points;
the army collected on the mole to renew its assaults; while he
himself, with his trustiest soldiers, delivered the main attack at the
southern breach.[418] Two vessels were selected for the purpose. On
one, which was that of Cœnus, he embarked a portion of the phalanx; on
the other, which was commanded by Admetus, he placed his bodyguard,
himself accompanying it. The struggle was short when once the
boarding-bridges were thrown across and rested on the battered wall.
Fighting under the eye of their king, the Macedonians carried all
before them, though not without important losses. Admetus himself, who
was the first to step on to the wall, received a spear thrust, and was
slain.[419] But the soldiers who were following close behind him
maintained their footing, and in a little time got possession of
several towers, with the spaces between them. Alexander was among the
foremost of those who mounted the breach,[420] and was for a while
hotly engaged in a hand-to-hand fight with the enemy. When those who
resisted him were slain or driven off, he directed his troops to seize
the royal palace, which abutted on the southern wall, and through it
make their entrance into the town.[421]

Meanwhile, the Greco-Phœnician fleet on the south side of the mole had
burst the boom and other obstacles by which the Egyptian harbour was
closed, and, attacking the ships within, had disabled some, and driven
the rest ashore, thus gaining possession of the southern port and a
ready access to the adjacent portion of the city.[422] The Cyprians,
moreover, on the north, had forced their way into the Sidonian
harbour, which had no boom, and obtained an entrance into the town on
that quarter.[423] The defences were broken through in three places,
and it might have been expected that resistance would have ceased. But
the gallant defenders still would not yield. A large body assembled at
the Agenorium, or temple of Agenor, and there made a determined stand,
which continued till Alexander himself attacked them with his
bodyguard, and slew almost the entire number. Others, mounting upon
the roofs of the houses, flung down stones and missiles of all kinds
upon the Macedonians in the street. A portion shut themselves up in
their homes and perished by their own hands. In the streets and
squares there was a terrible carnage. The Macedonians were infuriated
by the length of the siege, the stubbornness of the resistance, and
the fact that the Tyrians had in the course of the siege publicly
executed, probably by way of sacrifice, a number of their prisoners
upon the walls. Those who died with arms in their hands are reckoned
at eight thousand;[424] two thousand more, who had been made
prisoners, were barbarously crucified by command of Alexander round
the walls of the city.[425] None of the adult free males were spared,
except the few who had taken refuge with Azemilcus the king in the
temple of Melkarth, which Alexander professed greatly to revere, and a
certain number whom the Sidonians, touched at last with pity,
concealed on board their triremes. The women, the children, and the
slaves, to the number of thirty thousand,[426] were sold to the
highest bidder.

Having worked his will, and struck terror, as he hoped, into the
hearts of all who might be thinking of resisting him, Alexander
concluded the Tyrian episode of his career by a religious
ceremony.[427] Entering the city from the mole in a grand procession,
accompanied by his entire force of soldiers, fully armed and arrayed,
while his fleet also played its part in the scene, he proceeded to the
temple of Melkarth in the middle of the town, and offered his much
desired sacrifice to Hercules. A gymnastic contest and a torch race
formed a portion of the display. To commemorate his victory, he
dedicated and left in the temple the battering-ram which had made the
first impression on the southern wall, together with a Tyrian vessel,
used in the service of the god, which he had captured when he bore
down upon the city from Sidon with his fleet. Over the charred and
half-ruined remnants of the city, into which he had introduced a
certain number of colonists, chiefly Carians,[428] he placed as ruler
a member of a decayed branch of the royal family, a certain
Abd-elonim, whom the Greeks called Ballonymos.[429]


7. Phœnicia under the Greeks
(B.C. 323-65)

  The Phœnicians faithful subjects of Alexander--At his death
  Phœnicia falls, first to Laomedon, then to Ptolemy Lagi--Is held
  by the Ptolemies for seventy years--Passes willingly, B.C. 198,
  under the Seleucidæ--Relations with the Seleucid princes and with
  the Jews--Hellenisation of Phœnicia--Continued devotion of the
  Phœnicians generally to trade and commerce--Material prosperity of
  Phœnicia.

Phœnicia continued faithful to Alexander during the remainder of his
career. Phœnician vessels were sent across the Ægean to the coast of
the Peloponnese to maintain the Macedonian interest in that
quarter.[430] Large numbers of the mercantile class accompanied the
march of his army for the purposes of traffic. A portion of these,
when Alexander reached the Hydaspes and determined to sail down the
course of the Indus to the sea, were drafted into the vessels which he
caused to be built,[431] descended the river, and accompanied Nearchus
in his voyage from Patala to the Persian Gulf. Others still remained
with the land force, and marched with Alexander himself across the
frightful deserts of Beloochistan, where they collected the nard and
myrrh, which were almost its only products, and which were produced in
such abundance as to scent the entire region.[432] On Alexander's
return to Babylon, Phœnicia was required to supply him with additional
vessels, and readily complied with the demand. A fleet of forty-eight
ships--two of them quinqueremes, four quadriremes, twelve triremes,
and thirty pentaconters, or fifty-oared galleys--was constructed on
the Phœnician coast, carried in fragments to Thapsacus on the
Euphrates, and there put together and launched on the stream of the
Euphrates, down which it sailed to Babylon.[433] Seafaring men from
Phœnicia and Syria were at the same time enlisted in considerable
numbers, and brought to Alexander at his new capital to man the ships
which he was building there, and also to supply colonists for the
coasts of the Persian Gulf and the islands scattered over its
surface.[434] Alexander, among his many projects, nourished an
intention of adding to his dominions, at any rate, the seaboard of
Arabia, and understood that for this purpose he must establish in the
Persian Gulf a great naval power, such as Phœnicia alone out of all
the countries under his dominion was able to furnish. His untimely
death brought all these schemes to an end, and plunged the East into a
sea of troubles.

In the division of Alexander's empire, which followed upon his death,
Phœnicia was at first assigned, together with Syria, to Laemedon, and
the two formed together a separate satrapy.[435] But, after the
arrangement of Triparadisus (B.C. 320), Ptolemy Lagi almost
immediately attacked Laemedon, dispossessed him of his government, and
attached it to his own satrapy of Egypt.[436] Six years later (B.C.
314), attacked in his turn by Antigonus, Ptolemy was forced to
relinquish his conquests,[437] none of which offered much resistance
excepting Tyre. Tyre, though no more than eighteen years had elapsed
since its desolation by Alexander, had, like the fabled phœnix, risen
again from its ruins, and through the recuperative energy of commerce
had attained almost to its previous wealth and prosperity.[438] Its
walls had been repaired, and it was defended by its Egyptian garrison
with pertinacity. Antigonus, who was master of the Phœnician mainland,
established dockyards at Sidon, Byblus, and Tripolis, set eight
thousand sawyers and labourers to cut down timber in Lebanon, and
called upon the kings of the coast towns to build him a fleet with the
least possible delay.[439] His orders were carried out, and Tyre was
blockaded by sea and land for the space of fifteen months, when the
provisions failed and the town was forced to surrender itself.[440]
The garrison marched out with the honours of war, and Phœnicia became
an appendage of the empire (for such it was) of Antigonus.

From Antigonus Phœnicia passed to his son Demetrius, who maintained
his hold on it, with some vicissitudes of fortune, till B.C. 287, when
it once more passed under the dominion of Ptolemy Lagi.[441] From this
time it was an Egyptian dependency for nearly seventy years, and
flourished commercially, if it not distinguish itself by warlike
exploits. The early Ptolemies were mild and wise rulers. They
encouraged commerce, literature, and art. So far as was possible they
protected their dominions from external attack, put down brigandage,
and ruled with equity and moderation. It was not until the fourth
prince of the house of Lagus, Philopator, mounted the throne (B.C.
222) that the character of their rule changed for the worse, and their
subjects began to have reason to complain of them. The weakness and
profligacy of Philopater[442] tempted Antiochus III. to assume the
aggressive, and to disturb the peace which had now for some time
subsisted between Syria and Egypt, the Lagidæ and the Seleucidæ. In
B.C. 219 he drove the Egyptians out of Seleucia, the port of
Antioch,[443] and being joined by Theodotus, the Egyptian governor of
the Cœlesyrian province, invaded that country and Phœnicia, took
possession of Tyre and Accho, which was now called Ptolemaïs, and
threatened Egypt with subjugation.[444] Phœnicia once more became the
battle-field between two great powers, and for the next twenty years
the cities were frequently taken and re-taken. At last, in B.C. 198,
by the victory of Antiochus over Scopas,[445] and the surrender of
Sidon, Phœnicia passed, with Cœlesyria, into the permanent possession
of the Seleucidæ, and, though frequently reclaimed by Egypt, was never
recovered.

The change of rulers was, on the whole, in consonance with the wishes
and feelings of the Phœnicians. Though Alexandria may not have been
founded with the definite intention of depressing Tyre, and raising up
a commercial rival to her on the southern shore of the
Mediterranean;[446] yet the advantages of the situation, and the
interests of the Lagid princes, constituted her in a short time an
actual rival, and an object of Phœnician jealousy. Phœnicia had been
from a remote antiquity[447] down to the time of Alexander, the main,
if not the sole, dispenser of Egyptian products to Syria, Asia Minor,
and Europe. With the foundation of Alexandria this traffic passed out
of her hands. It may be true that what she lost in this way was "more
than compensated by the new channels of eastern traffic which
Alexander's conquests opened to her, by the security given to
commercial intercourse by the establishment of a Greek monarchy in the
ancient dominions of the Persian kings, and by the closer union which
now prevailed between all parts of the civilised world."[448] But the
balance of advantage and disadvantage does not even now always
reconcile traders to a definite and tangible loss; and in the ruder
times of which we are writing it was not to be expected that arguments
of so refined and recondite a character should be very sensibly felt.
Tyre and Sidon recognised in Alexandria a rival from the first, and
grew more and more jealous of her as time went on. She monopolised the
trade in Egyptian commodities from her foundation. In a short time she
drew to herself, not only the direct Egyptian traffic, but that which
her rulers diverted from other quarters, and drew to Egypt by the
construction of harbours, and roads with stations and watering
places.[449] Much of the wealth that had previously flowed into
Phœnicia was, in point of fact, diverted to Egypt, and especially to
Alexandria, by the judicious arrangements of the earlier Lagid
princes. Phœnicia, therefore, in attaching herself to the Seleucidæ,
felt that she was avenging a wrong, and though materially she might
not be the gainer, was gratified by the change in her position.

The Seleucid princes on their part regarded the Phœnicians with
favour, and made a point of conciliating their affections by personal
intercourse with them, and by the grant of privileges. At the
quinquennial festival instituted by Alexander ere he quitted Tyre,
which was celebrated in the Greek fashion with gymnastic and musical
contests, the Syrian kings were often present in person, and took part
in the festivities.[450] They seem also to have visited the principal
cities at other times, and to have held their court in them for many
days together.[451] With their consent and permission, the towns
severally issued their own coins, which bore commonly legends both in
Greek and in Phœnician, and had sometimes Greek, sometimes Phœnician
emblems.[452] Both Aradus and Tyre were allowed the privilege of being
asylums,[453] from which political refugees could not be demanded by
the sovereign.

The Phœnicians in return served zealously on board the Syro-Macedonian
fleet, and showed their masters all due respect and honour.[454] They
were not afraid, however, of asserting an independence of thought and
judgment, even in matters where the kings were personally concerned.
On one occasion, when Antiochus Epiphanes was holding his court at
Tyre, a cause of the greatest importance was brought before him for
decision by the authorities at Jerusalem. The high-priest of the time,
Menelaus, who had bought the office from the Syrian king, was accused
of having plundered the Temple of a number of its holy vessels, and of
having sold them for his own private advantage. The Sanhedrim, who
prosecuted Menelaus, sent three representatives to Tyre, to conduct
the case, and press the charges against him. The evidence was so clear
that the High Priest saw no chance of an acquittal, except by private
interest. He therefore bribed an influential courtier, named Ptolemy,
the son of a certain Dorymenes, to intercede with Antiochus on his
behalf, and, if possible, obtain his acquittal. The affair was not one
of much difficulty. Justice was commonly bought and sold at the Syro-
Macedonian Court, and Antiochus readily came into the views of
Ptolemy, and pronounced the High Priest innocent. He thought, however,
that in so grave a matter some one must be punished, and, as he had
acquitted Menelaus, he could only condemn his accusers. These
unfortunates suffered death at his hands, whereon the Tyrians,
compassionating their fate, and to mark their sense of the iniquity of
the sentence, decreed to give them an honourable burial. The historian
who relates the circumstance evidently feels that it was a bold and
courageous act, very creditable to the Tyrian people.[455]

It is not always, however, that we can justly praise the conduct of
the Phœnicians at this period. Within six years of the time when the
Tyrians showed themselves at once so courageous and so compassionate,
the nation generally was guilty of complicity in a most unjust and
iniquitous design. Epiphanes, having driven the Jews into rebellion by
a most cruel religious persecution, and having more than once suffered
defeat at their hands, resolved to revenge himself by utterly
destroying the people which had provoked his resentment.[456] Called
away to the eastern provinces by a pressing need, he left instructions
with his general, Lysias, to invade Judæa with an overwhelming force,
and, after crushing all resistance, to sell the surviving population--
men, women, and children--for slaves. Lysias, in B.C. 165, marched
into Judæa, accompanied by a large army, with the full intention of
carrying out to the letter his master's commands. In order to attract
purchasers for the multitude whom he would have to sell, he made
proclamation that the rate of sale should be a talent for ninety, or
less than 3l. a head,[457] while at the same he invited the attendance
of the merchants from all "the cities of the sea-coast," who must have
been mainly, if not wholly, Phœnicians. The temptation was greater
than Phœnician virtue could resist. The historian tells us that "the
merchants of the country, hearing the fame of the Syrians, took silver
and gold very much, with servants, and came into the Syrian camp to
buy the children of Israel for money."[458] The result was a well-
deserved disappointment. The Syrian army suffered complete defeat at
the hands of the Jews, and had to beat a hasty retreat; the merchants
barely escaped with their lives. As for the money which they had
brought with them for the purchase of the captives, it fell into the
hands of the victorious Jews, and formed no inconsiderable part of the
booty which rewarded their valour.[459]

After this, we hear but little of any separate action on the part of
the Phœnicians, or of any Phœnician city, during the Seleucid period.
Phœnicia became rapidly Hellenised; and except that they still
remained devoted to commercial pursuits, the cities had scarcely any
distinctive character, or anything that marked them out as belonging
to a separate nationality. Greek legends became more frequent upon the
coins; Greek names were more and more affected, especially by the
upper classes; the men of letters discarded Phœnician as a literary
language, and composed the works, whereby they sought to immortalize
their names, in Greek. Greek philosophy was studied in the schools of
Sidon;[460] and at Byblus Phœnician mythology was recast upon a Greek
type. At the same time Phœnician art conformed itself more and more
closely to Greek models, until all that was rude in it, or archaic, or
peculiar, died out, and the productions of Phœnician artists became
mere feeble imitations of second-rate Greek patterns.

The nation gave itself mainly to the pursuit of wealth. The old trades
were diligently plied. Tyre retained its pre-eminence in the
manufacture of the purple dye; and Sidon was still unrivalled in the
production of glass. Commerce continued to enrich the merchant
princes, while at the same time it provided a fairly lucrative
employment for the mass of the people. A new source of profit arose
from the custom, introduced by the Syro-Macedonians, of farming the
revenue. In Phœnicia, as in Syria generally, the taxes of each city
were let out year by year to some of the wealthiest men of the
place,[461] who collected them with extreme strictness, and made over
but a small proportion of the amount to the Crown. Large fortunes were
made in this way, though occasionally foreigners would step in, and
outbid the Phœnician speculators,[462] who were not content unless
they gained above a hundred per cent. on each transaction. Altogether,
Phœnicia may be pronounced to have enjoyed much material prosperity
under the Seleucid princes, though, in the course of the civil wars
between the different pretenders to the Crown, most of the cities had,
from time to time, to endure sieges. Accho especially, which had
received from the Lagid princes the name of Ptolemaïs, and was now the
most important and flourishing of the Phœnician towns, had frequently
to resist attack, and was more than once taken by storm.[463]


8. Phœnicia under the Romans
(B.C. 65-A.D. 650)

  Syria made a Roman province, B.C. 65--Privileges granted by Rome
  to the Phœnician cities--Phœnicia profits by the Roman suppression
  of piracy, but suffers from Parthian ravages--The Phœnicians
  offend Augustus and lose their favoured position, but recover it
  under later emperors--Mention of the Phœnician cities in the New
  Testament--Phœnicia accepts Christianity--Phœnician bishops at the
  early Councils--Phœnician literature at this date--Works of
  Antipater, Apollonius, Philo, Hermippus, Marinus, Maximus, and
  Porphyry--School of law at Berytus--Survival of the Phœnician
  commercial spirit--Survival of the religion--Summary.

The kingdom of the Seleucidæ came to an end through its own internal
weakness and corruption. In B.C. 83 their subjects, whether native
Asiatics or Syro-Macedonians, were so weary of the perpetual series of
revolts, civil wars, and assassinations that they invited Tigranes,
the king of the neighbouring Armenia, to step in and undertake the
government of the country.[464] Tigranes ruled from B.C. 83 till B.C.
69, when he was attacked by the Romans, to whom he had given just
cause of offence by his conduct in the Mithridatic struggle. Compelled
by Lucullus to relinquish Syria, he retired to his own dominions, and
was succeeded by the last Seleucid prince, Antiochus Asiaticus, who
reigned from B.C. 69 to B.C. 65. Rome then at length came forward, and
took the inheritance to which she had become entitled a century and a
quarter earlier by the battle of Magnesia, and which she could have
occupied at any moment during the interval, had it suited her purpose.
The combat with Mithridates had forced her to become an Asiatic power;
and having once overcome her repugnance to being entangled in Asiatic
politics, she allowed her instinct of self-aggrandizement to have full
play, and reduced the kingdom of the Seleucidæ into the form of a
Roman province.[465]

The province, which retained the name of Syria, and was placed under a
proconsul,[466] whose title was "Præses Syriæ," extended from the
flanks of Amanus and Taurus to Carmel and the sources of the Jordan,
and thus included Phœnicia. The towns, however, of Tripolis, Sidon,
and Tyre were allowed the position of "free cities," which secured
them an independent municipal government, under their own freely
elected council and chief magistates. These privileges, conferred by
Pompey, were not withdrawn by Julius Cæsar, when he became master of
the Roman world; and hence we find him addressing a communication
respecting Hyrcanus to the "Magistates, Council, and People of
Sidon."[467] A similar regard was shown for Phœnician vested rights by
Anthony, who in B.C. 36, when his infatuation for Cleopatra was at its
height, and he agreed to make over to her the government of Palestine
and of Cœlesyria, as far as the river Eleutherus, especially exempted
from her control, despite her earnest entreaties, the cities of Tyre
and Sidon.[468] Anthony also wrote more than one letter to the
"Magistates, Council, and People of Tyre," in which he recognised them
as "allies" of the Roman people rather than subjects.[469]

So far the Phœnicians would seem to have gained rather than lost by
exchanging the dominion of Syria for that of Rome. They gained also
greatly by the strictness with which Rome kept the police of the
Eastern Mediterranean. For many years previously to B.C. 67 their
commerce had been preyed upon to an enormous extent by the piratical
fleets, which, issuing from the creeks and harbours of Western Cilicia
and Pamphylia, spread terror on every side,[470] and made the
navigation of the Levant and Ægean as dangerous as it had been in the
days anterior to Minos.[471] Pompey, in that year, completely
destroyed the piratical fleets, attacked the pirates in their lairs,
and cleared them out from every spot where they had established
themselves. Voyages by sea became once more as safe as travels by
land; and a vigilant watch being kept on all the coasts and islands,
piracy was never again permitted to gather strength, or become a
serious evil. The Phœnician merchants could once more launch their
trading vessels on the Mediterranean waters without fear of their
suffering capture, and were able to insure their cargoes at a moderate
premium.

But their connection with Rome exposed the Phœnicians to some fresh,
and terrible, perils. The great attack of Crassus on Parthia in the
year B.C. 53 had bitterly exasperated that savage and powerful
kingdom, which was quite strong enough to retaliate, under favourable
circumstances, upon the mighty mistress of the West, and to inflict
severe sufferings upon Rome's allies, subjects, and dependencies.
After a preliminary trial of strength[472] in the years B.C. 522 and
51, Pacorus, the son of Orodes, in B.C. 40, crossed the Euphrates in
force, defeated the Romans under Decidius Saxa, and carried fire and
sword over the whole of the Syrian presidency.[473] Having taken
Apamea and Antioch, he marched into Phœnicia, ravaged the open
country, and compelled all the towns, except Tyre, to surrender. Tyre,
notwithstanding the mole constructed by Alexander, which joined it to
the continent, was still regarded as impregnable, unless invested both
by sea and land; on which account Pacorus, as he had no naval force,
relinquished the idea of capturing it.[474] But all the other cities
either gave themselves up or were taken, and the conquest of Phœnicia
being completed, the Parthian prince proceeded to occupy Palestine.
Jerusalem fell into his hands, and for three years the entire tract
between the Taurus range and Egypt was lost to Rome, and formed a
portion of the Parthian Empire. What hardships, what insults, what
outrages the Phœnicians had to endure during this interval we do not
know, and can only conjecture; but the conduct of the Parthians at
Jerusalem[475] makes it probable that the inhabitants of the conquered
districts generally had much cause for complaint. However, the time of
endurance did not last very long; in the third year from the
commencement of the invasion the fortune of war turned against the
assailants. Rome, under Ventidius, recovered her lost laurels. Syria
was reoccupied, and the Parthians driven across the Euphrates, never
again to pass it.[476]

In the struggle (which soon followed these events) between Antony and
Augustus, Phœnicia had the misfortune to give offence to the latter.
The terms on which they stood with Antony, and the protection which he
had afforded to their cities against the greed of Cleopatra, naturally
led them to embrace his cause; and it should scarcely have been
regarded as a crime in them that they did so with ardour. But
Augustus, who was certainly not clement by nature, chose to profess
himself deeply aggrieved by the preference which they had shown for
his rival, and, when he personally visited the East in B.C. 20,
inflicted a severe punishment on two at least of the cities. Dio
Cassius can scarcely be mistaken when he says that Tyre and Sidon were
"enslaved"--i.e. deprived of freedom--by Augustus,[477] who must
certainly have revoked the privilege originally granted by Pompey.
Whether the privilege was afterwards restored is somewhat uncertain;
but there is distinct evidence that more than one of the later
emperors was favourably disposed to Rome's Phœnician subjects.
Claudius granted to Accho the title and status of a Roman colony;[478]
while Hadrian allowed Tyre to call herself a "metropolis."[479]

Two important events have caused Tyre and Sidon to be mentioned in the
New Testament. Jesus Christ, in the second year of his ministry,
"arose and went" from Galilee "into the borders of Tyre and Sidon,"
and there wrought a miracle at the earnest request of a "Syro-
Phœnician woman."[480] And Herod Agrippa, the grandson of Herod the
Great, when at Cæsarea in A.D. 44, received an embassy from "them of
Tyre and Sidon," with whom he was highly offended, and "made an
oration" to the ambassadors.[481] In this latter place the continued
semi-independence of Tyre and Sidon seems to be implied. Agrippa is
threatening them with war, while they "desire peace." "Their country"
is spoken of as if it were distinct from all other countries. We
cannot suppose that the Judæan prince would have ventured to take up
this attitude if the Phœnician cities had been fully incorporated into
the Roman State, since in that case quarrelling with them would have
been quarrelling with Rome, a step on which even Agrippa, with all his
pride and all his rashness, would scarcely have ventured. It is
probable, therefore, that either Tiberius or Claudius had revoked the
decree of Augustus, and re-invested the Phœnician cities with the
privilege whereof the first of the emperors had deprived them.

Not long after this, about A.D. 57, we have evidence that the great
religious and social movement of the age had swept the Phœnician
cities within its vortex, and that, in some of them at any rate,
Christian communities had been formed, which were not ashamed openly
to profess the new religion. The Gospel was preached in Phœnicia[482]
as early as A.D. 41. Sixteen years later, when St. Paul, on his return
from his third missionary journey, landed at Tyre, and proceeded
thence to Ptolemaïs, he found at both places "churches," or
congregations of Christians, who received him kindly, ministered to
his wants, prayed with him, and showed a warm interest in his
welfare.[483] These communities afterwards expanded. By the end of the
second century after Christ Tyre was the seat of a bishopric, which
held an important place among the Syrian Sees. Several Tyrian bishops
of the second, third, and fourth centuries are known to us, as Cassius
(ab. A.D. 198), Marinus (A.D. 253), Methodius (A.D. 267-305),
Tyrannion (A.D. 310), and Paulinus (A.D. 328). Early in the fourth
century (B.C. 335) Tyre was the seat of a synod or council, called to
consider charges made against the great Athanasius,[484] who was taxed
with cruelty, impiety, and the use of magical arts. As the bishops who
assembled belonged chiefly to the party of Arius, the judgment of the
council condemned Athanasius, and deprived him of his see. On appeal
the decision was reversed; Athanasius was reinstated,[485] and
advanced; the cause with which he had identified himself triumphed;
and the Synod of Tyre being pronounced unorthodox, the Tyrian church,
like that of Antioch, sank in the estimation of the Church at large.

Tyre also made herself obnoxious to the Christian world in another
way. In the middle of the third century she produced the celebrated
philosopher, Porphyry,[486] who, of all the literary opponents of
Christianity, was the most vigorous and the most successful. Porphyry
appears to have been a Phœnician by descent. His original name was
Malchus--i.e. Melek or Malik, "king." To disguise his Asiatic origin,
and ingratiate himself with the literary class of the day, who were
chiefly Greeks or Grecised Romans, he took the Hellenic and far more
sonorous appellation of Porphyrius, which he regarded as a sort of
synonym, since purple was the /royal/ colour. He early gave himself to
the study of philosophy, and was indefatigable in his efforts to
acquire knowledge and learning of every kind. In Asia, probably at
Tyre itself, he attended the lectures of Origen; at Athens he studied
under Apollonius and Longinus; in Rome, whereto he ultimately
gravitated, he attached himself to the Neo-Platonic school of
Plotinus. His literary labours, which were enormous, had for their
general object the establishment of that eclectic system which
Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus, Jamblichus, and others had elaborated, and
were endeavouring to impose upon the world as constituting at once
true religion and true philosophy. He was of a constructive rather
than a destructive turn of mind. Still, he thought it of great
importance, and a necessity of the times, that he should write a book
against the Christians, whose opinions were, he knew, making such
progress as raised the suspicion that they would prevail over all
others, and in a short time become universal. This polemical treatise
ran to fifteen books, and "exhibited considerable acquaintance with
both the Jewish and the Christian scriptures."[487] It is now lost,
but its general character is well known from the works of Eusebius,
Jerome, and others. The style was caustic and trenchant. An endeavour
was made to show that both the historical scriptures of the Old
Testament and the Gospels and Acts in the New were full of
discrepancies and contradictions. The history and antiquities of the
Jews, as put forth in the Bible, were examined, and declared to be
unworthy of credit. A special attack was made on the genuineness and
authenticity of the book of Daniel, which was pronounced to be the
work of a contemporary of Antiochus Epiphanes, who succeeded in
palming off upon his countrymen his own crude production as the work
of the venerated sage and prophet. Prevalent modes of interpreting
scripture were passed under review, and the allegorical exegesis of
Origen was handled with especial severity. The work is said to have
produced a vast effect, especially among the upper classes, whose
conversion to Christianity it tended greatly to check and hinder.
Answers to the book, or to particular portions of it, were published
by Eusebius of Cæsarea, by Apollinaris, and by Methodius, Bishop of
Tyre; but these writers had neither the learning nor the genius of
their opponent, and did little to counteract the influence of his work
on the upper grades of society.[488]

The literary importance of the Phœnician cities under the Romans is
altogether remarkable. Under Augustus and Tiberius--especially from
about B.C. 40 to A.D. 20--Sidon was the seat of a philosophical
school, in which the works of Aristotle were studied and
explained,[489] perhaps to some extent criticised.[490] Strabo
attended this school for a time in conjunction with two other
students, named Boëthus and Diodotus. Tyre had even previously
produced the philosophers, Antipater, who was intimate with the
younger Cato, and Apollonius, who wrote a work about Zeno, and formed
a descriptive catalogue of the authors who had composed books on the
subject of the philosophy of the Stoics.[491] Strabo goes so far as to
say that philosophy in all its various aspects might in his day be
better studied at Tyre and Sidon than anywhere else.[492] A little
later we find Byblus producing the semi-religious historian, Philo,
who professed to reveal to the Greeks the secrets of the ancient
Phœnician mythology, and who, whatever we may think of his judgment,
was certainly a man of considerable learning. He was followed by his
pupil, Hermippus, who was contemporary with Trajan and Hadrian, and
obtained some reputation as a critic and grammarian.[493] About the
same time flourished Marinus, the writer on geography, who was a
Tyrian by birth, and "the first author who substituted maps,
mathematically constructed according to latitude and longitude, for
the itinerary charts" of his predecessors.[494] Ptolemy of Pelusium
based his great work entirely upon that of Marinus, who is believed to
have utilised the geographical and hydrographical accumulations of the
old Phœnician navigators, besides availing himself of the observations
of Hipparchus, and of the accounts given of their travels by various
Greek and Roman authors. Contemporary with Marinus was Paulus, a
native of Tyre, who was noted as a rhetorician, and deputed by his
city to go as their representative to Rome and plead the cause of the
Tyrians before Hadrian.[495] A little later we hear of Maximus, who
flourished under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (ab. A.D. 160-190), a
Tyrian, like Paulus, and a rhetorician and Platonic philosopher.[496]
The literary glories of Tyre culminated and terminated with Porphyry,
of whose works we have already given an account.

Towards the middle of the third century after Christ a school of law
and jurisprudence arose at Berytus, which attained high distinction,
and is said by Gibbon[497] to have furnished the eastern provinces of
the empire with pleaders and magistrates for the space of three
centuries (A.D. 250-550). The course of education at Berytus lasted
five years, and included Roman Law in all its various forms, the works
of Papinian being especially studied in the earlier times, and the
same together with the edicts of Justinian in the later.[498] Pleaders
were forced to study either at Berytus, or at Rome, or at
Constantinople,[499] and, the honours and emoluments of the profession
being large, the supply of students was abundant and perpetual.
External misfortune, and not internal decay, at last destroyed the
school, the town of Berytus being completely demolished by an
earthquake in the year A.D. 551. The school was then transferred to
Sidon, but appears to have languished on its transplantation to a new
soil and never to have recovered its pristine vigour or vitality.

It is difficult to decide how far these literary glories of the
Phœnician cities reflect any credit on the Phœnician race. Such a
number of Greeks settled in Syria and Phœnicia under the Seleucidæ
that to be a Tyrian or a Sidonian in the Græco-Roman period furnished
no evidence at all of a man having any Phœnician blood in his veins.
It will have been observed that the names of the Tyrian, Sidonian, and
Berytian learned men and authors of the time--Antipater, Apollonius,
Boëthus, Diodotus, Philo, Hermippus, Marinus, Paulus, Maximus,
Porphyrius--are without exception either Latin or Greek. The language
in which the books were written was universally Greek, and in only one
or two cases is there reason to suppose that the authors had any
knowledge of the Phœnician tongue. The students at Berytus between
A.D. 250 and 550 were probably, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred,
Greeks or Romans. Phœnician nationality had, in fact, almost wholly
disappeared in the Seleucid period. The old language ceased to be
spoken, and though for some time retained upon the coins together with
a Greek legend,[500] became less frequent as time went on, and soon
after the Christian era disappeared altogether. It is probable that,
as a spoken language, Phœnician had gone out of use even earlier.[501]

In two respects only did the old national spirit survive, and give
indication that, even in the nation's "ashes," there still lived some
remnant of its "wonted fires." Tyre and Sidon were great commercial
centres down to the time of the Crusades, and quite as rich, quite as
important, quite as flourishing, commercially, as in the old days of
Hiram and Ithobal. Mela[502] speaks of Sidon in the second century
after Christ as "still opulent." Ulpian,[503] himself a Tyrian by
descent, calls Tyre in the reign of Septimus Severus "a most splendid
colony." A writer of the age of Constantine says of it: "The
prosperity of Tyre is extraordinary. There is no state in the whole of
the East which excels it in the amount of its business. Its merchants
are persons of great wealth, and there is no port where they do not
exercise considerable influence."[504] St. Jerome, towards the end of
the fourth century, speaks of Tyre as "the noblest and most beautiful
of all the cities of Phœnicia,"[505] and as "an emporium for the
commerce of almost the whole world."[506] During the period of the
Crusades, "Tyre retained its ancient pre-eminence among the cities of
the Syrian coast, and excited the admiration of the warriors of Europe
by its capacious harbours, its wall, triple towards the land and
double towards the sea, its still active commerce, and the beauty and
fertility of the opposite shore." The manufactures of purple and of
glass were still carried on. Tyre was not reduced to insignificance
until the Saracenic conquest towards the close of the thirteenth
century of our era, when its trade collapsed, and it became "a rock
for fishermen to spread their nets upon."[507]

The other respect in which the vitality of the old national spirit
displayed itself was in the continuance of the ancient religion. While
Christianity was adopted very generally by the more civilised of the
inhabitants, and especially by those who occupied the towns, there
were shrines and fanes in the remote districts, and particularly in
the less accessible parts of Lebanon, where the old rites were still
in force, and the old orgies continued to be carried on, just as in
ancient times, down to the reign of Constantine. The account of the
licentious worship of Ashtoreth at Aphaca, which has been already
quoted from Eusebius, belongs to the fourth century after our era, and
shows the tenacity with which a section of the Phœnicians, not
withstanding their Hellenisation in language, in literature, and in
art, clung to the old barbarous and awful cult, which had come down to
them by tradition from their fathers. A similar worship at the same
time maintained itself on the other side of the Lebanon chain in
Heliopolis, or Baalbek, where the votaries of impurity allowed their
female relatives, even their wives and their daughters, to play the
harlot as much as they pleased.[508] Constantine exerted himself to
put down and crush out these iniquities, but it is more than probable
that, in the secret recesses of the mountain region, whither
government officials would find it hard to penetrate, the shameful and
degrading rites still found a refuge, rooted as they were in the
depraved affections of the common people, to a much later period.

The mission of the Phœnicians, as a people, was accomplished before
the subjection to Rome began. Under the Romans they were still
ingenious, industrious, intelligent. But in the earlier times they
were far more than this. They were the great pioneers of civilisation.
Intrepid, inventive, enterprising, they at once made vast progress in
the arts themselves, and carried their knowledge, their active habits,
and their commercial instincts into the remotest regions of the old
continent. They exercised a stimulating, refining, and civilising
influence wherever they went. North and south and east and west they
adventured themselves amid perils of all kinds, actuated by the love
of adventure more than by the thirst for gain, conferring benefits,
spreading knowledge, suggesting, encouraging, and developing trade,
turning men from the barbarous and unprofitable pursuits of war and
bloodshed to the peaceful occupations of productive industry. They did
not aim at conquest. They united the various races of men by the
friendly links of mutual advantage and mutual dependence, conciliated
them, softened them, humanised them. While, among the nations of the
earth generally, brute force was worshipped as the true source of
power and the only basis of national repute, the Phœnicians succeeded
in proving that as much could be done by arts as by arms, as great
glory and reputation gained, as real a power built up, by the quiet
agencies of exploration, trade, and commerce, as by the violent and
brutal methods of war, massacre, and ravage. They were the first to
set this example. If the history of the world since their time has not
been wholly one of the potency in human affairs of "blood and iron,"
it is very much owing to them. They, and their kinsmen of Carthage,
showed mankind what a power might be wielded by commercial states. The
lesson has not been altogether neglected in the past. May the writer
be pardoned if, in the last words of what is probably his last
historical work, he expresses a hope that, in the future, the nations
of the earth will more and more take the lesson to heart, and vie with
each other in the arts which made Phœnicia great, rather than in those
which exalted Rome, her oppressor and destroyer?



FOOTNOTES


PREFACE

[1] /Die Phönizier, und das phönizische Alterthum/, by F. C. Movers,
in five volumes, Berlin, 1841-1856.

[2] /History and Antiquities of Phœnicia/, by John Kenrick, London,
1855.

[3] /Histoire de l'Art dans l'Antiquité/, par MM. Perrot et Chipiez,
Paris, 1881-7, 4 vols.

[4] Will of William Camden, Clarencieux King-of-Arms, founder of the
"Camden Professorship," 1662.


I
THE LAND

[1] See Eckhel, /Doctr. Num. Vet./ p. 441.

[2] {'H ton 'Aradion paralia}, xvi. 2, § 12.

[3] Pomp. Mel. /De Situ Orbis/, i. 12.

[4] The tract of white sand (Er-Ramleh) which forms the coast-line of
the entire shore from Rhinocolura to Carmel is said to be
gradually encroaching, fresh sand being continually brought by the
south-west wind from Egypt. "It has buried Ascalon, and in the
north, between Joppa and Cæsaræa, the dunes are said to be as much
as three miles wide and 300 feet high" (Grove, in Smith's /Dict.
of the Bible/, ii. 673).

[5] See Cant. ii. 1; Is. xxxiii. 9; xxxv. 2; lxv. 10.

[6] Stanley, /Sinai and Palestine/, p. 254.

[7] The Kaneh derives its name from this circumstance, and may be
called "the River of Canes."

[8] Robinson, /Biblical Researches/, iii. 28, 29.

[9] Grove, l.s.c.

[10] Stanley, /Sinai and Palestine/, p. 260.

[11] Lynch found it eighteen yards in width in April 1848 (/The Jordan
and the Dead Sea/, p. 64). He found the Belus twice as wide and
twice as deep as the Kishon.

[12] A more particular description of these fountains will be given in
the description of the city of Tyre, with which they were very
closely connected.

[13] Robinson, /Biblical Researches/, iii. 410.

[14] Robinson, iii. 415.

[15] Ibid. p. 414. Compare Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, pp. 524, 665.

[16] Robinson, iii. 420.

[17] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 353.

[18] See Edrisi (traduction de Joubert), i. 355; D'Arvieux,
/Mémoires/, ii. 33; Renan, pp. 352, 353.

[19] Gesenius, /Thesaurus/, p. 247.

[20] Renan, pp. 59, 60.

[21] Kenrick (/Phœnicia/, p. 8), who quotes Burckhardt (/Syria/, p.
161), and Chesney (/Euphrates Expedition/, i. 450).

[22] Renan, p. 59:--"C'est un immense tapis de fleurs."

[23] Mariti, /Travels/, ii. 131 (quoted by Kenrick, p. 22).

[24] Strabo, xvi. 2, § 27.

[25] Stanley, /Sinai and Palestine/, p. 344.

[26] Martineau, /Eastern Life/, p. 539.

[27] Van de Velde, /Travels/, i. 317, 318. Compare Porter, /Giant
Cities of Bashan/, p. 236.

[28] Ritter, /Erdkunde/, xvi. 31.

[29] Grove, in Smith's /Dictionary of the Bible/, i. 278.

[30] Walpole's /Ansayrii/, iii. 156.

[31] The derivation of Lebanon from "white," is generally admitted.
(see Gesenius, /Thesaurus/, p. 369; Buxtorf, /Lexicon/, p. 1119;
Fürst, /Concordantia/, p. 588.)

[32] Stanley, /Sinai and Palestine/, p. 395.

[33] Tristram, /The Land of Israel/, p. 634.

[34] Ibid. p. 7.

[35] Porter, in Smith's /Dictionary of the Bible/, ii. 86.

[36] Ibid. Compare /Nat. Hist. Review/, No. v. p. 11.

[37] See Tristram, /Land of Israel/, pp. 625-629.

[38] See Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 626.

[39] Porter, in /Dictionary of the Bible/, ii. 86.

[40] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 621.

[41] Ibid. p. 600. Compare Porter, in Smith's /Dictionary of the
Bible/, ii. 87.

[42] Such outlets are common in Greece, where they are called
/Katavothra/. They probably also occur in Asia Minor.

[43] Burckhardt, /Travels in Syria/, p. 10; Chesney, /Euphrates
Expedition/, i. 398.

[44] Tristram, p. 600.

[45] Porter, /Handbook for Syria/, p. 571; Robinson, /Later
Researches/, p. 423.

[46] Tristram, p. 594.

[47] Robinson, /Biblical Researches/, iii. 409.

[48] Burckhardt, /Travels in Syria/, p. 161; Chesney, /Euphrates
Expedition/, i. 450; Walpole's /Ansayrii/, iii. 49.

[49] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 116.

[50] Porter, /Giant Cities of Bashan/, p. 289.

[51] Ibid. p. 288.

[52] Walpole's /Ansayrii/, iii. 44.

[53] Porter, /Giant Cities/, p. 292; Robinson, /Later Researches/, p.
605; Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 297.

[54] Maundrell, /Travels/, pp. 57, 58; Porter, /Giant Cities/, p. 284;
Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 283.

[55] Porter, p. 283.

[56] Porter, p. 284.

[57] Robinson, /Later Researches/, p. 45.

[58] Ibid. p. 43.

[59] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 44.

[60] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 20.

[61] See the /Transactions of the Society of Bibl. Archæology/, vol.
vii.; and compare Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 14; Robinson, /Later
Researches/, pp. 617-624.

[62] Walpole's /Ansayrii/, iii. 6.

[63] Ibid. p. 34. Compare Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, who calls the
pass over the spur "un véritable casse-cou sur des roches
inclinées" (p. 150).

[64] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 16.

[65] Robinson, /Biblical Researches/, iii. 432.


II
CLIMATE AND PRODUCTIONS

[1] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 32.

[2] Grove, in Smith's /Dict. of the Bible/, ii. 693.

[3] Kenrick, l.s.c.

[4] See Canon Tristram's experiences, /Land of Israel/, pp. 96-115.

[5] Ibid. pp. 94, 95.

[6] Kenrick, p. 34.

[7] Walpole's /Ansayrii/, p. 76.

[8] Kenrick, p. 33.

[9] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 95.

[10] Ibid. p. 409.

[11] Ibid. p. 31.

[12] Ibid. p. 34.

[13] Ibid. p. 596.

[14] Hooker, in /Dictionary of the Bible/, ii. 684.

[15] Hooker, in /Dictionary of the Bible/, p. 683.

[16] Dr. Hooker says:--"/Q. pseudococcifera/ is perhaps the commonest
plant in all Syria and Palestine, covering as a low dense bush
many square miles of hilly country everywhere, but rarely or never
growing on the plains. It seldom becomes a large tree, except in
the valleys of the Lebanon." Walpole found it on Bargylus
(/Ansayrii/, iii. 137 et sqq.); Tristram on Lebanon, /Land of
Israel/, pp. 113, 117.

[17] Hooker, in /Dict. of the Bible/, ii. 684. Compare Tristram, /Land
of Israel/, p. 113.

[18] Ibid.

[19] See Walpole, /Ansayrii/, iii. 222, 236; Tristram, /Land of
Israel/, pp. 622, 623; Robinson, /Later Researches/, p. 607.

[20] Walpole, iii. 433; Robinson, /Later Researches/, p.. 614.

[21] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 6.

[22] Ibid. p. 111; Walpole, /Ansayrii/, iii. 166; Hooker, in /Dict. of
the Bible/, ii. 683.

[23] Walpole says that Ibrahim Pasha cut down as many as 500,000
Aleppo pines in Casius (/Ansayrii/, iii. 281), and that it would
be quite feasible to cut down 500,000 more.

[24] Hooker, in /Dict. of the Bible/, ii. 684; and compare Tristram,
/Land of Israel/, pp. 16, 88.

[25] Robinson, /Biblical Researches/, iii. 383, 415.

[26] Ezek. xxxi. 3.

[27] Ibid. xxvii. 5. The Hebrew /erez/ probably covered other trees
besides the actual cedar, as the Aleppo pine, and perhaps the
juniper. The pine would have been more suited for masts than the
cedar.

[28] 1 Kings vi. 9, 10, 15, 18, &c.; vii. 1-7.

[29] /Records of the Past/, i. 104. ll. 78, 79; iii. 74, ll. 88-90; p.
90, l. 9; &c. Compare Layard, /Nineveh and Babylon/, pp. 356, 357.

[30] Joseph, /Bell. Jud./, v. 5, § 2.

[31] Plin. /H. N./, xiii. 5; xvi. 40.

[32] Compare the arguments of Canon Tristram, /Land of Israel/, pp.
631, 632.

[33] Walpole, /Ansayrii/, pp. 123, 227.

[34] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 621.

[35] Ibid. pp. 13, 38, &c.

[36] Hooker, in /Dictionary of the Bible/, ii. 684.

[37] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 82; compare Hooker, l.s.c.

[38] This is Dr. Hooker's description. Canon Tristram says of the
styrax at the eastern foot of Carmel, that "of all the flowering
shrubs it is the most abundant," and that it presents to the eye
"one sheet of pure white blossom, rivalling the orange in its
beauty and its perfume" (/Land of Israel/, p. 492).

[39] Ibid. p. 596.

[40] Walpole, /Ansayrii/, iii. 298.

[41] Tristram, pp. 16, 28, &c.; Robinson, /Biblical Researches/, iii.
438.

[42] The "terraced vineyards of Esfia" on Carmel are noted by Canon
Tristram (/Land of Israel/, p. 492). Walpole speaks of vineyards
on Bargylus (/Ansaryii/, iii. 165). The vine-clad slopes of the
Lebanon attract notice from all Eastern travellers.

[43] Quoted by Dr. Hooker, in Smith's /Dictionary of the Bible/, ii.
684, 685.

[44] Deut. xxxiii. 24.

[45] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, pp. 7, 16, 17; Walpole, /Ansayrii/,
iii. 147, 177.

[46] Tristram, p. 492; Stanley, /Sinai and Palestine/, p. 347.

[47] Hooker, in Smith's /Dictionary of the Bible/, ii. 685.

[48] Tristram, pp. 622, 633; Walpole, /Ansayrii/, iii. 446; Robinson,
/Later Researches/, p. 607.

[49] Tristram, pp. 17, 38; Walpole, /Ansayrii/, iii. 32, 294, 373.

[50] Robinson, /Bibl. Researches/, iii. 419, 431, 438, &c.

[51] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 28.

[52] Hasselquist, /Reise/, p. 188.

[53] /Ansayrii/, i. 66.

[54] Tristram, l.s.c.

[55] Hooker, in /Dictionary of the Bible/, ii. 685.

[56] /Reise/, l.s.c.

[57] /Mémoires/, i. 332.

[58] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 493.

[59] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 82.

[60] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 59; Hooker, in /Dictionary of
the Bible/, ii. 687; Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 493.

[61] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, l.s.c.

[62] Ibid. p. 82.

[63] Ibid. p. 596. Compare Walpole's /Ansayrii/, iii. 443.

[64] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 102.

[65] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, pp. 61, 599.

[66] Ibid. pp. 38, 626, &c. Dr. Robinson notices the cultivation of
the potato high up in Lebanon; but he observed it only in two
places (/Later Researches/, pp. 586, 596).

[67] It can scarcely be doubted that Phœnicia contained anciently two
other land animals of considerable importance, viz. the lion and
the deer. Lions, which were common in the hills of Palestine (1
Sam. xvii. 34; 1 Kings xiii. 24; xx. 36; 2 Kings xvii. 25, 26) and
frequented also the Philistine plain (Judg. xiv. 5), would
certainly not have neglected the lowland of Sharon, which was in
all respects suited for their habits. Deer, which still inhabit
Galilee (Tristram, /Land of the Israel/, pp. 418, 447), are
likely, before the forests of Lebanon were so greatly curtailed,
to have occupied most portions of it (See Cant. ii. 9, 17; viii.
14). To these two Canon Tristram would add the crocodile (/Land of
Israel/, p. 103), which he thinks must have been found in the
Zerka for that river to have been called "the Crocodile River" by
the Greeks, and which he is inclined to regard as still a denizen
of the Zerka marshes. But most critics have supposed that the
animal from which the Zerka got its ancient name was rather some
large species of monitor.

[68] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 36.

[69] See his article on Lebanon in Smith's /Dictionary of the Bible/,
ii. 87.

[70] /Land of Israel/, p. 447.

[71] Houghton, in Smith's /Dict. of the Bible/, ad voc. BEAR, iii.
xxv.

[72] /Dict. of the Bible/, ii. 87.

[73] /Land of Israel/, p. 116. Compare Porter's /Giant Cities of
Bashan/, p. 236.

[74] Cant. iv. 8; Is. xi. 6; Jer. v. 6; xiii. 23; Hos. xiii. 7; Hab.
i. 8.

[75] /Land of Israel/, l.s.c.

[76] Ibid. p. 83.

[77] Ibid. p. 115.

[78] Walpole's /Ansayrii/, iii. 23.

[79] Houghton, in Smith's /Dict. of the Bible/, ad voc. CONEY (iii.
xliii.); Tristram, /Land of Israel/, pp. 62, 84, 89.

[80] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 106.

[81] Ibid. pp. 88, 89.

[82] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 83.

[83] Ibid. p. 55.

[84] Ibid. p. 103. Compare Walpole, /Ansayrii/, iii. 34, 188, and
Lortet, /La Syrie d'aujourd'hui/, pp. 58, 61.

[85] /Hist. Nat./ ix. 36.

[86] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 239. There are representations of the
Buccunum in Forbes and Hanley's /British Mollusks/, vol. iv. pl.
cii. Nos. 1, 2, 3.

[87] Kenrick, p. 239.

[88] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 51.

[89] Wilksinson, in Rawlinson's /Herodotus/, ii. 347, note 2.

[90] Canon Tristram writs: "Among the rubbish thrown out in the
excavations made at Tyre were numerous fragments of glass, and
whole 'kitchen middens' of shells, crushed and broken, the owners
of which had once supplied the famous Tyrian purple dye. All these
shells were of one species, the /Murex brandaris/" (/Land of
Israel, p. 51).

[91] Porter, in /Dict. of the Bible/, ii. 87.

[92] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 37.

[93] Tristram, p. 634.

[94] Grove, in /Dict. of the Bible/, i. 279.


III
THE PEOPLE--ORIGIN AND CHARACTERISTICS

[1] /Histoire des Languages Sémitiques/, p. 22.

[2] /Rhet./ iii. 8.

[3] Deutsch, /Literary Remains/, p. 160.

[4] Renan, /Hist. des Langues Sémitiques/, pp. 5, 14.

[5] Ibid. p. 16.

[6] Deutsch, /Literary Remains/, p. 305.

[7] Ibid.

[8] /Ancient Monarchies/, i. 275; Deutsch, p. 306.

[9] Herod. i. 2; vii. 89.

[10] Strab. xvi. 3, § 4.

[11] /Hist. Philipp./ xviii. 3, § 2.

[12] /Ancient Monarchies/, i. 14.

[13] Renan, /Histoire des Langues Sémitiques/, p. 183.

[14] Deutsch, /Literary Remains/, pp. 162, 163.

[15] Herod. vi. 47:--{'Oros mega anestrammenon en te zetesei}.

[16] On this imaginary "monsters," see Herod. vi. 44.

[17] Ibid. iv. 42.

[18] Herod. vii. 85.

[19] Ibid. ii. 112.

[20] 1 Kings xi. 1.

[21] Ibid. xvi. 31.

[22] Ezra iii. 7.

[23] Is. xxiii. 15-18.

[24] Mark vii. 26-30.

[25] Acts xii. 20.

[26] Herod. iv. 196.

[27] Herod, i. 1:--{Perseon oi Lagioi}.

[28] Ibid. ii. 190.

[29] Ibid. ii. 4, 99, 142.

[30] Ibid. i. 1; iv. 42; vi. 47; vii. 23, 44, 96.

[31] As they do of being indebted to the Babylonians and the Egyptians
for astronomical and philosophic knowledge.

[32] Deutsch, /Literary Remains/, p. 163.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Compare the representation of Egyptian ships in Dümichen's
/Voyage d'une Reine Egyptienne/ (date about B.C. 1400) with the
far later Phœnician triremes depicted by Sennacherib (Layard,
/Monuments of Nineveh/, second series, pl. 71).

[35] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, pp. 100, 101.

[36] The Cypriot physiognomy is peculiar. (See Di Cesnola's /Cyprus/,
pp. 123, 129, 131, 132, 133, 141, &c.)

[37] Herod. vii. 90.

[38] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 68, note 3.


IV
THE CITIES

[1] The nearest approach to such a period is the time a little
preceding Nebuchadnezzar's siege, when Sidon, Byblus, and Aradus
all appear as subject to Tyre (Ezek. xxvii. 8-11).

[2] 1 Kings xvii. 9-24.

[3] 1 Macc. xv. 37.

[4] Gen. x. 15.

[5] Josh. xix. 29.

[6] Ibid. verse 28.

[7] See Hom. /Il./ vii. 290; xxiii. 743; /Od./ iv. 618; xiv. 272, 285;
xvi. 117, 402, 424.

[8] /Hist. Philipp./ xviii. 3, § 2.

[9] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 460.

[10] Steph, Byz. ad voc.

[11] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, pl. lxvii.

[12] Scylax, /Periplus/, § 104. This work belongs to the time of
Philip, Alexander's father.

[13] See Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, pl. lxii.

[14] The inscription on the sarcophagus of Esmunazar. (See /Records of
the Past/, ix. 111-114, and the /Corp. Inscr. Semit./, i. 13-20.)

[15] The name "Palæ-Tyrus" is first found in Strabo (xvi. 2, § 24).

[16] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 347.

[17] Plin. /H. N./ v. 17.

[18] Renan (/Mission de Phénicie/, p. 552) gives the area as 576,508
square metres.

[19] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 21.

[20] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 560.

[21] So Bertou (/Topographie de Tyr/, p. 14), and Kenrick (/Phœnicia,
p. 352).

[22] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 560.

[23] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 351.

[24] See the fragments of Dius and Menander, preserved by Josephus
(/Contr. Ap./ i. § 17, 18), and compare Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii.
24. It is quite uncertain what Phœnician deity is represented by
"Agenor."

[25] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 559.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Strab. xvi. 2, § 23.

[29] Menand, ap. Joseph. l.s.c.

[30] Strab. l.s.c.

[31] Eight thousand are said to have been killed in the siege, and
30,000 sold when the place was taken. (Arrian, /Exp. Alex./
l.s.c.) A certain number were spared.

[32] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 552.

[33] Plin. /H. N./ v. 17.

[34] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 348.

[35] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 22.

[36] See Capt. Allen's /Dead Sea/, ii. 179.

[37] See Capt. Allen's /Dead Sea/, ii. 179.

[38] Strabo, xvi. 2, § 13.

[39] Allen, /Dead Sea/, l.s.c.

[40] Ibid. p. 180.

[41] See the woodcut, and compare Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/,
planches, pl. ii.; and Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art dans
l'Antiquité/, iii. 25.

[42] Allen, /Dead Sea/, ii. 180.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Strab. xvi. 2, § 13.

[45] Strab. xvi. 2, § 13. See also Lucret. /De Rer. Nat./ vi. 890.

[46] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 42.

[47] Strab. xvi. 2, § 12.

[48] Fr. ii. 7. Philo, however, makes "Brathu" a mountain.

[49] See /Records of the Past/, iii. 19, 20.

[50] /Mission de Phénicie/, pp. 58-61.

[51] Strab. l.s.c.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Gen. x. 18.

[54] /Eponym Canon/, p. 123, 1. 2.

[55] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 115. And compare the map.

[56] Carnus is identified by M. Renan with the modern Carnoun, on the
coast, three miles north of Tortosa (/Mission/, p. 97).

[57] /Eponym Canon/, p. 114, l. 104.

[58] Josh. xiii. 5; 1 Kings v. 18.

[59] Arr. /Exp. Alex./ ii. 15.

[60] Strab. xvi. 2, § 18.

[61] Fragm. ii. 8, § 17.

[62] /Corp. Inscr. Sem./, i. 3 (pl 1); Philo-Bybl. Fr. ii. 8, § 25.

[63] Strab. l.s.c.

[64] Allen, /Dead Sea/, ii. 164.

[65] Ibid.

[66] Strab. xvi. 2, § 15.

[67] See G. Smith's /Eponym Canon/, pp. 123, 132, 148.

[68] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 9.

[69] Burckhardt, /Travels in Syria/, p. 162.

[70] Scylax, /Peripl./, § 104; Diod. Sic. xvi. 41; Pomp. Mel. i. 12.

[71] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 633; Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire
de l'Art dans l'Antiquité/, iii. 56.

[72] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 57, 59.

[73] Allen, /Dead Sea/, ii. 152.

[74] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 295.

[75] Lucian, /De Dea Syra/, § 9.

[76] Philo. Bybl. Fr. ii. 8, § 25.

[77] Stephen of Byzantium calls it {polin thoinikes ek mikrae
megalen}. Strabo says that it was rebuilt by the Romans (xvi. 2, §
19).

[78] Phocas, /Descr. Urbium/, § 5.

[79] Cellarius, /Geograph./ ii. 378.

[80] Gen. x. 17.

[81] /Eponym Canon/, pp. 120, l. 25; 123, l. 2.

[82] Josh. xix. 29.

[83] /Eponym Canon/, p. 132, l. 10.

[84] /Eponym Canon/, p. 132, l. 10; 148, l. 103.

[85] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, pp. 20, 21.

[86] This seems to be the true meaning of Strab. xvi. 2, § 25; sub
init.

[87] Josh. vii. 23.

[88] Ibid. xvii. 11.

[89] 1 Kings iv. 11.

[90] /Ancient Monarchies/, ii. 132.

[91] Steph. Byz. ad voc. DORA.

[92] Hieronym. /Epit. Paulæ/ (Opp. i. 223).

[93] Josh. xix. 47.

[94] 1 Macc. x. 76.

[95] Jonah i. 3.

[96] 2 Chron. ii. 16.

[97] Ezra iii. 7.

[98] See Capt. Allen's /Dead Sea/, ii. 188.

[99] Eustah. /ad Dionys. Perieg./ l. 915.

[100] Compare the Heb. "Ramah" and "Ramoth" from {...}, "to be high."

[101] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 3.

[102] Gesenius, /Monumenta Scripture Linguæque, Phœniciæ/, p. 271.

[103] Allen, /Dead Sea/, ii. 189.

[104] Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 23.

[105] Perrot and Chipiez, iii. 23-25.

[106] Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art dans l'Antiquité/, iii.
25, 26.

[107] The Phœnicians held Dor and Joppa during the greater part of
their existence as a nation, but the tract between them, and that
between Dor and Carmel--the plain of Sharon--shows no trace of
their occupation.


V
THE COLONIES

[1] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 71.

[2] Gen. x. 4. Compare Joseph. /Ant. Jud./ i. 6.

[3] Kenrick, p. 72.

[4] The two plains are sometimes regarded as one, which is called that
of Mesaoria; but they are really distinct, being separated by high
ground in Long. 33º nearly.

[5] Ælian, /Hist. Ann./ v. 56.

[6] Strab. xiv. 6, § 5.

[7] Theophrastus, /Hist. Plant./ v. 8.

[8] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, Introduction, p. 7.

[9] The copper of Cyprus became known as {khalkos Kuprios} or {Æs
Cyprium}, then as /cyprium/ or /cyprum/, finally as "copper,"
"kupfer," "cuivre," &c.

[10] Ezek. xxvii. 6.

[11] Compare Ammianus--"Tanta tamque multiplici fertilitate abundat
rerum omnium Cyprus, ut, nullius externi indigens adminiculi,
indigenis viribus a fundamento ipso carinæ ad supremos ipsos
carbasos ædificet onerariam navem, omnibusque armamentis
instructam mari committat" (xiv. 8, § 14).

[12] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 49.

[13] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 75.

[14] Di Cesnola, pp. 65-117.

[15] Ibid. pp. 68, 83.

[16] Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 215.

[17] Ibid.

[18] {Polis Kuprou arkhaiotate}.

[19] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 294.

[20] Ibid. pp. 254-281.

[21] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 294.

[22] Ibid. p. 378.

[23] Strabo, xiv. 6, § 3; Steph. Byz. ad voc. CURIUM.

[24] Herod. v. 113.

[25] Apollodor. /Biblioth./ iii. 14, § 13.

[26] Virg. /Æn./ i. 415-417; Tacit. /Ann./ iii. 62; /Hist./ ii. 2;
Strab. xiv. 6, § 3.

[27] Ps. lxxvi. 2.

[28] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 201.

[29] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 198, and Map.

[30] /Eponym Canon/, p. 139, l. 23.

[31] Ibid. p. 144, l. 22.

[32] On the copper-mines of Tamasus, see Strab. xiv. 6, § 5; and
Steph. Byz. ad voc.

[33] /Eponym Canon/, ll.s.c.

[34] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 228.

[35] Plut. /Vit. Solon./ § 26.

[36] Diod. Sic. xiv. 98, § 2.

[37] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 231.

[38] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 74.

[39] Gen. x. 4.

[40] Gesenius, /Mon. Script. Linquæque Phœniciæ/, p. 278.

[41] Strab. xiv. 5, § 3.

[42] Ibid. xiv. 3, § 9. Mt. Solyma, now Takhtalu, is the most striking
mountain of these parts. Its bald summit rises to the height of
4,800 feet above the Mediterranean (Beaufort, /Karamania/, p. 57).

[43] Strab. xiv. 3, § 8, sub fin.

[44] Beaufort, /Karamania/, p. 31.

[45] Herod. iii. 90; vii. 77; Strab. xiii. 4, § 15; Steph. Byz. ad.
voc.

[46] Beaufort, /Karamania/, p. 56.

[47] Strab. xiv. 3, § 9.

[48] Beaufort, pp. 59, 60.

[49] Ibid. p. 70.

[50] As Corinna and Basilides (see Athen. /Deipnos/, iv. 174).

[51] Ap. Phot. /Bibliothec./ p. 454.

[52] Ap. Athen. /Deipn./ viii. 361.

[53] Dict. Cret. i. 18; iv. 4.

[54] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, pp. 80, 81.

[55] Aristid. /Orat./ § 43.

[56] Acts xxvii. 12.

[57] Steph. Byz. ad voc.

[58] Herod. iv. 151.

[59] Heb. {...}, Copt. /labo/, &c.

[60] Steph. Byz. ad voc. {KUTHERA}; Festus, ad voc. MELOS.

[61] Kenrick, p. 96.

[62] Steph. Byz. ad voc. {MEMBLIAROS}.

[63] Heraclid. Pont. ap. Steph. Byz. ad voc.

[64] Herod. iv. 147.

[65] Thucyd. i. 8.

[66] Herod. iii. 57; Pausan. x. 11.

[67] Tournefort, /Voyages/, i. 136.

[68] Plin, /H. N./ iv. 12. Compare Steph. Byz. ad voc. {KUTHERA}.

[69] Theophrast. /Hist. Plant./ iv. 2; Plin. /H. N./ xxxv. 15.

[70] Strab. x. 5, § 16.

[71] Ibid. § 19, ad fin.

[72] Herod. ii. 44.

[73] Ibid. vi. 47.

[74] Hesych. ad voc. {KABEIROI}; Steph. Byz. ad voc. {IMBROS}; Strab.
vii. Fr. 51.

[75] Strab. xiv. 5, § 28; Plin. /H. N./ vii. 56.

[76] Strab. x. 1, § 8.

[77] Herod. v. 57; Strab. ix. 2, § 3; Pausan. ix. 25, § 6, &c.

[78] Steph. Byz. ad voc. {PRONEKTOS}; Scymn. Ch. l. 660.

[79] Apollon. Rhod. ii. l. 178; Euseb. /Præp. Ev./ p. 115; Schol. ad
Apollon. Rhod. l.s.c.; Steph. Byz. ad voc. {SESAMOS}.

[80] So Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, pp. 91, 92.

[81] Utica was said to have been founded 287 years before Carthage
(Aristot. /De Ausc. Mir./ § 146). Carthage was probably founded
about B.C. 850.

[82] Thucyd. vi. 2.

[83] Strab. xvii. 3, § 13.

[84] See the chart opposite, and the description in the /Géographie
Universelle/, xi. 271, 272.

[85] Ibid. p. 270.

[86] Plin. /H. N./ v. 4, § 23; /Géographie Universelle/, xi. 157.

[87] /Géograph. Univ./ xi. 275.

[88] Ibid. p. 274.

[89] /Géograph. Univ./ xi. 413, 414.

[90] Ibid. pp. 410, 411.

[91] See Davis's /Carthage/, pp. 128-130; and compare the woodcut in
the /Géograph. Univ./ xi. 259.

[92] Beulé, /Fouilles à Carthage/, quoted in the /Géograph. Univ./ xi.
258.

[93] "Adrymes" is the Greek name (Strab. xvii. 3, § 16), Adrumetum or
Hadrumetum, the Roman one (Sall. /Bell. Jugurth./ § 19; Liv. xxx.
29; Plin. /H. N./ v. 4, § 25).

[94] /Géograph. Univ./ xi. 227, 228.

[95] Ibid. p. 227, note.

[96] /Géographie Universelle/, xi. 224.

[97] /Géograph. Univ./ xi. 84.

[98] Strabo, xvii. 3, § 18.

[99] See Della Cella, /Narrative/, p. 37, E. T.; Beechey, /Narrative/,
p. 51.

[100] Herod. iv. 198. Compare Ovid. /Pont./ ii. 7, 25.

[101] See the chart in the /Géographie Universelle/, xi. 223.

[102] Strab. xvii. 3, § 12.

[103] See Daux, /Recherches sur les Emporia Phéniciens/, pp. 256-258;
and compare Pl. viii.

[104] At Utica, Carthage, and elsewhere.

[105] Daux, /Recherches/, pp. 169-171; Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de
l'Art dans l'Antiquité/, iii. 400-402.

[106] Thucyd. vi. 2.

[107] Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 336.

[108] Diod. Sic. xiv. 68.

[109] Gesenius, /Monumenta Phœnicia/, pp. 297, 298, and Tab. 39, xii.
A, B.

[110] Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 330.

[111] Polyb. i. 55.

[112] Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 331. Compare the
accompanying woodcut.

[113] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 334; Woodcuts, No. 242
and 243.

[114] Marsala, whose wine is so well known, occupies a site on the
coast at a short distance.

[115] /Géographie Universelle/, i. 552.

[116] /Géographie Universelle/, i. p. 551.

[117] See Gesenius, /Monumenta Phœnicia/, pp. 288-290, and Tab. 38,
ix. Mahanath corresponds to the Greek {skenai} and the Roman
/castra/. Compare the Israelite "Mahanaim."

[118] Serra di Falco, /Antichità di Sicilia/, v. 60, 67.

[119] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 187-189.

[120] Ibid. p. 426.

[121] /Géographie Universelle/, i. 571.

[122] Gesenius, /Monumenta Phœnicia/, p. 298.

[123] Diod. Sic. v. 12.

[124] See the /Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum/, vol. i. No. 132.

[125] Gesenius, /Mon. Phœn./ Tab. 40, xiv.

[126] For an account of these buildings, called by the natives
"Giganteja," see Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 297, 298.

[127] Ibid.

[128] Ibid. p. 299.
[129] "Malte, l'île de miel" (/Géogr. Univ./ i. 576).

[130] {Kunidia, a kalousi Melitaia} (Strab. vi. 2, § 11, sub fin.).

[131] Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iv. 2.

[132] Diod. Sic. xiv. 63, § 4; 77, § 6; xxi. 16, &c.

[133] Perrot et Chipiez, l.s.c. Compare the /Géographie Universelle/,
i. 599, 600.

[134] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 233; La Marmora, /Voyage en Sardaigne/,
ii. 171-341.

[135] Strabo calls the town Sulchi ({Soulkhoi}, v. 2, § 7).

[136] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 231, 232, 253, &c.

[137] None of the classical geographers mentions the place excepting
Ptolemy, who calls it "Tarrus" (/Geograph./ iii. 3).

[138] See Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 231-236, and
418-421.

[139] Herod. i. 166.

[140] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 116; Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 46, 186.

[141] /Géographie Universelle/, i. 800.

[142] Strab. iii. 5, § 1.

[143] Kenrick, p. 118; /Géogr. Univ./ i. 795.

[144] "Un admirable port natured divisé par des ilôts et des
péninsules en cales et en bassins secondairs; tous les avantages
se trouvent réunis dans ce bras de mer" (/Géographie Universelle/,
i. 808).

[145] Ibid. p. 801.

[146] Ibid. p. 799.

[147] {Phoinikike to skhemati} (Strab. iii. 4, § 2).

[148] {Phoinikon ktisma} (ib. iii. 4, § 3).

[149] Gesenius, /Mon. Phœn./ pp. 308-310; Tab. 40, xvi.

[150] Strab. iii. 4, § 2.

[151] Ibid.

[152] Ibid. iii. 4, § 6.

[153] Three hundred, according to some writers (Ibid. xvii. 3, § 3).

[154] Plin. /H. N./ xix. 4.

[155] Gesenius, /Mon. Phœn./ pp. 309, 310.

[156] /Géograph. Univ./ xi. 710-713.

[157] Strab. ii. 3, § 4; Hanno, /Peripl./ § 6; Scylax, /Peripl./ §
112.

[158] See /Géograph. Univer./ xi. 714.

[159] Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 337.

[160] Ibid. p. 339.

[161] Ibid. p. 341.

[162] See Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 118; Dyer, in Smith's /Dict. of
Greek and Roman Geography/, ii. 1106.

[163] Scymn. Ch. ll. 100-106; Strabo, iii. 2, § 11; Mela, /De Situ
Orbis/, ii. 6; Plin. /H. N./ iv. 21; Fest. Avien. /Descriptio
Orbis/, l. 610; Pausan. vi. 19.

[164] Stesichorus, /Fragmenta/ (ed. Bergk), p. 636; Strab. l.s.c.

[165] Scymn. Ch. l.s.c.

[166] See Herod. i. 163.

[167] 1 Kings x. 22.

[168] Strab. iii. 2, § 8; /Géograph. Univ./ i. 741-745.

[169] Strab. iii. 2, § 11.

[170] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 119.

[171] Strab. iii. 2, § 7.

[172] Aristoph. /Ran./ l. 476; Jul. Pollux, vi. 63.

[173] Vell. Paterc. i. 2.

[174] /Géograph. Univ./ i. 756-758.

[175] Ibid. p. 758.

[176] Strab. iii. 5, § 5; Diod. Sic. v. 20; Scymn. Ch. 160; Mela, iii.
6, § 1; Plin. /H. N./ v. 19; &c.

[177] Gesen. /Mon. Phœn./ pp. 304, 370.

[178] Strabo, iii. 5, § 3.

[179] See the /Géographie Universelle/, i. 759.

[180] The name is to be connected with the words Baal, Belus, Baalath,
&c. There was a river "Belus," in Phœnicia Proper.

[181] Gesenius, /Monumenta Phœnicia/, pp. 311, 312.

[182] Ibid. p. 311.

[183] I.e. towards the north-east, in the Propontis and the Euxine.


VI
ARCHITECTURE

[1] Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art dans l'Antiquité/, iii. 101.

[2] See Renan, /Mission de Phœnicie/, p. 92, and Planches, pl. 12.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, pp. 62-68.

[5] Ibid. Planches, pl. 10.

[6] 1 Kings v. 17, 18.

[7] /Our Work in Palestine/, p. 115. Warren, /Recovery of Jerusalem/,
i. 121.

[8] See the /Corpus. Inscr. Semit./ Pars I. Planches, pl. 29, No. 136.

[9] As at Sidon in the pier wall, and at Aradus in the remains of the
great wall of the town.

[10] M. Renan has found reason to question the truth of this view.
Bevelling, he thinks, may have begun with the Phœnicians; but it
became a general feature of Palestinian and Syrian architecture,
being employed in Syria as late as the middle ages. The enclosure
of the mosque at Hebron and the great wall of Baalbek are
bevelled, but are scarcely Phœnician.

[11] See Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, Planches, pl. vi.

[12] Compare the enclosure of the Haram at Jerusalem, the mosque at
Hebron, and the temples at Baalbek (Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire
de l'Art/, iii. 105, No. 42; iv. 274, No. 139, and p. 186, No. 116).

[13] See Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 108, 299, &c.

[14] Renan, /Mission/, p. 822.

[15] See Renan, /Mission/, pp. 62-68; and compare Perrot et Chipiez,
/Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 242, 243.

[16] See Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 64.

[17] See Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, pp. 63, 64.

[18] Ibid. p. 65.

[19] See the volume of Plates published with the /Mission/, pl. ix.
fig 1.

[20] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 110; pl. xxxv. fig. 20; xxxvi. fig. 7;
xxxvii. figs. 10, 11; Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii.
pp. 124, 428, 533, &c.

[21] Renan, /Mission/, Planches, pl. ix. fig. 3.

[22] See Perrot et Chipie, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 253, No. 193; p.
310, No. 233.

[23] See the author's /History of Ancient Egypt/, i. 237.

[24] /Mission de Phénicie/, pp. 64, 65.

[25] See Di Cesnola's /Cyprus/, pp. 210-212.

[26] The temple of Solomon was mainly of wood; that of Golgi
(Athiénau) was, it is thought, of crude brick (Di Cesnola,
/Cyprus/, p. 139).

[27] See the plan in Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 267,
No. 200. Explorations are now in progress, which, it is hoped, may
reveal more completely the plan of the building.

[28] As being the most important temple in the island.

[29] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 211.

[30] Ibid. p. 210.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 269.

[33] In M. Gerhard's plan two circular ponds or reservoirs are marked,
of which General Di Cesnola found no trace.

[34] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 211.

[35] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 322.

[36] As Di Cesnola, and Ceccaldi.

[37] Ceccaldi, as quoted by Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 275.

[38] Ceccaldi, /Monuments Antiques de Cypre/, pp. 47, 48.

[39] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 139.

[40] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 149; Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de
l'Art/, iii. 274; Ceccaldi, l.s.c.

[41] Di Cesnola, p. 139.

[42] Ibid. p. 140.

[43] Ibid. Compare Perrot et Chipiez, l.s.c.

[44] The only original account of this crypt is that of General Di
Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pp. 303-305.

[45] Mephitic vapours prevented the workmen from continuing their
excavations.

[46] The length of this room was twenty feet, the breadth nineteen
feet, and the height fourteen feet (Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 304).

[47] Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 285.

[48] See the woodcut representing a portion of the old wall of Aradus,
which is taken from M. Renan's /Mission/, Planches, pl. 2.

[49] In some of the ruder walls, as in those of Banias and Eryx, even
this precaution is not observed. See Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire
de l'Art/, iii. 328, 334.

[50] Diod. Sic. xxxii. 14.

[51] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 21, § 3.

[52] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 331, 332, 339.

[53] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. pp. 333, 334.

[54] See his /Recherches sur l'origine et l'emplacement des Emporia
Phéniciens/, pl. 8.

[55] Compare Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, pls. 7, 16, 18, &c.; and Di
Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 224.

[56] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 256, 260; Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de
l'Art/, iii. 219-221.

[57] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 255.

[58] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pp. 255, 256.

[59] See Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 260; and compare Perrot et Chipiez,
/Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 219, No. 155.

[60] Di Cesnola, p. 259.

[61] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 224.

[62] See Ross, /Reisen nach Cypern/, pp. 187-189; and /Archäologische
Zeitung/ for 1851, pl. xxviii. figs. 3 and 4.

[63] They are not shown in Ross's representation, but appear in Di Cesnola's.

[64] See Sir C. Newton's /Halicarnassus/, pls. xviii. xix.

[65] 1 Macc. xiii. 27-29.

[66] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 80.

[67] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 81.

[68] Ibid. pp. 82, 85.

[69] See Robinson, /Researches in Palestine/, iii. 385.

[70] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 599.

[71] Perrot and Chipiez remark that "the general aspect of the edifice
recalls that of the great tombs at Amrith;" and conclude that, "if
the tomb does not actually belong to the time of Solomon's
contemporary and ally, at any rate it is anterior to the Greco-
Roman period" (/Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 167).

[72] See the section of the building in Renan's /Mission/, Planches,
pl. xlviii.

[73] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 71.

[74] Ibid. Planches, pl. 13.

[75] Ibid. p. 72.

[76] Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 153.

[77] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, pp. 71-73.

[78] "Ce que ce tombeau offre de tout à fait particulier c'est que
l'entrée du caveau, ou, pour mieux dire, l'escalier qui y conduit,
est couvert, dans sa partie antérieure, par un énorme bloc
régulièrement taillé en dos d'âne et supporté par une assise de
grosses pierres" (Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 154).

[79] Mark xvi. 3, 4.

[80] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 334.

[81] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 126, No. 68.

[82] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pp. 211, 301.

[83] See Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 129-134.

[84] /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 822.

[85] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 822.

[86] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 829.


VII
ÆSTHETIC ART

[1] See Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 404, and compare pp.
428 and 437.

[2] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pp. 129-157, &c.

[3] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 510.

[4] Ibid. p. 513: "Les figures semblent avoir été taillées non dans
des blocs prismatiques, mais dans de la pierre débitée en
carrière, sous forme de dalles épaisses."

[5] Di Cesnola, p. 150.

[6] Ibid. pp. 149, 150.

[7] Di Cesnola, p. 157.

[8] So both Di Cesnola (l.s.c) and Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 565.

[9] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. Nos. 349, 385, 405, &c.;
Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pp. 133, 149, 157.

[10] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 519, No. 353.

[11] Ibid. Nos. 323, 342, 368. Occasionally an arm is placed across
the breast without anything being clasped (Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/,
pp. 131, 240).

[12] Perrot et Chipiez, Nos. 299, 322, 373.

[13] Ibid. Nos. 291, 321, 379, 380.

[14] Ibid. Nos. 381, 382.

[15] Perrot et Chipiez, Nos. 306, 345, 349, &c.

[16] See Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pp. 141, 230, 243, &c.

[17] Compare Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 530, No. 358; p. 533, No. 359;
and Di Cesnola, pp. 131, 154, &c.

[18] Di Cesnola, pp. 129, 145; Perrot et Chipiez, pp. 527, 545.

[19] Di Cesnola, pp. 149, 151, 161, &c.

[20] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 201, No. 142; p. 451,
No. 323; p. 598, No. 409. The best dove is that in the hand of a
priest represented by Di Cesnola (/Cyprus/, p. 132).

[21] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 114.

[22] Ibid. p. 331; Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 203, and Pl. ii. opp. p. 582.

[23] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 136; Ceccaldi, /Rev. Arch./ vol. xxiv. pl. 21.

[24] Di Cesnola, p. 137.

[25] Ibid. p. 133.

[26] Ibid. pp. 110-114.

[27] See the /Story of Assyria/, p. 403; and compare /Ancient Monarchies/,
i. 395, 493.

[28] See /Story of Assyria/, l.s.c.; and for the classical practice,
which was identical, compare Lipsius, /Antiq. Lect./ iii.

[29] So it is in a garden that Asshurbani-pal and his queen regale
themselves (/Ancient Monarchies/, i. 493). Compare Esther i. 7.

[30] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 620.

[31] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pp. 259-267.

[32] Di Cesnola is in favour of Melkarth (p. 264); MM. Perrot and
Chipiez of Bes (/Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 610). Individually, I
incline to Esmun.

[33] See Di Cesnola, Pl. vi.; Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 450, 555, 557;
Nos. 321, 379, 380, 381, and 382.

[34] Herod. iii. 37.

[35] Perrot et Chipiez see in it the travels of the deceased in
another world (/Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 612); but they admit that at
first sight one would be tempted to regard it as the
representation of an historical event, as the setting forth of a
prince for war, or his triumphant return.

[36] A similar crest was used by the Persians (/Ancient Monarchies/,
iii. 180, 234), and the Lycians (Fellows's /Lycia/, pl. xxi. oop. p. 173).

[37] Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 609-611.

[38] See the /Journal le Bachir/ for June 8, 1887, published at Beyrout.

[39] 1 Kings vii. 14; 2 Chron. ii. 14.

[40] 1 Kings vii. 21.

[41] "/In/ the porch" (1 Kings vii. 21); "/before/ the house," "before
the temple" (2 Chron. iii. 15, 17).

[42] 1 Kings vii. 15, 16.

[43] Jer. lii. 21.

[44] 1 Kings vii. 17, 20.

[45] Ibid. verse 20; 2 Chron. iv. 13; Jer. lii. 23.

[46] 1 Kings vii. 22.

[47] See Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, vol. iv. Pls. vi. and
vii. opp. pp. 318 and 320.

[48] 1 Kings vii. 23.

[49] Ibid. vv. 23-25.

[50] See the representation in Perrot et Chipiez, iv. 327, No. 172.

[51] Perrot et Chipiez, iv. 328.

[52] 1 Kings vii. 27-39.

[53] Ibid. verse 38.

[54] Ibid. verse 29.

[55] See the woodcut in Perrot et Chipiez, iv. 331, No. 173; and
compare 1 Kings vii. 31.

[56] 1 Kings vii. 36.

[57] 1 Kings vii. 33.

[58] Ibid. v. 40. Compare 2 Chron. iv. 16.

[59] See Di Cesnola's /Cyprus/, Pls. xxi. and xxx.

[60] A single statue in bronze, of full size, or larger than life, is
said to have been exhumed in Cyprus in 1836 (Perrot et Chipiez,
iii. 514); but it has not reached our day.

[61] See the works of La Marmora (/Voyage en Sardaigne/), Cara
(/Relazione sugli idoli sardo-fenici/), and Perrot et Chipiez
(/Hist. de l'Art/, iv. 65-89).

[62] Perrot et Chipiez, iv. 65, 66.

[63] Ibid. pp. 67, 69, 88.

[64] Ibid. pp. 67, 70, 89.

[65] Ibid. 52, 74, 75, 87, &c.

[66] See Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, Pl. iv. opp. p. 84.

[67] Ibid. opp. p. 345.

[68] Ibid. p. 337.

[69] /Monumenti di cere antica/, Pl. x. fig. 1.

[70] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 77.

[71] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, Pl. xi. opp. p. 114.

[72] In the museum of the Varvakeion. (See Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist.
de l'Art/, iii. 782-785.)

[73] Ibid. p. 783, No. 550.

[74] Compare the author's /History of Ancient Egypt/, i. 362.

[75] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 779, No. 548.

[76] See /Ancient Monarchies/, i. 392.

[77] See Clermont-Ganneau, /Imagerie Phénicienne/, p. xiii.

[78] See Clermont-Ganneau, /Ima. Phénicienne/, Pls. ii. iv. and vi.
Compare Longpérier, /Musée Napoléon III./, Pl. x.; Di Cesnola,
/Cyprus/, p. 329; Pl. xix. opp. p. 276; Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist.
de l'Art/, iii. 777, 789; Nos. 547 and 552.

[79] Clermont-Ganneau, Pl. i. at end of volume; Perrot et Chipiez,
iii. 759, No. 543.

[80] /L'Imagerie Phénicienne/, p. 8.

[81] Helbig, /Bullettino dell' Instituto di Corrispondenza
archeologica/, 1876, p. 127.

[82] /L'Imagerie Phénicienne/, p. 8.

[83] /L'Imagerie Phénicienne/, pp. xi, xiii, and 18-39.

[84] Ibid. p. 151.

[85] /L'Imagerie Phénicienne/, pp. 150-156. It is fatal to M.
Clermont-Ganneau's idea--1. That the hunter in the outer scene has
no dog; 2. That the dress of the charioteer is wholly unlike that
of the fugitive attacked by the dog; and 3. That M. Clermont-
Ganneau's explanation accounts in no way for the medallion's
central and main figure.

[86] "Les formes et les mouvements des chevaux sont indiqués avec
beaucoup du sûreté et de justesse" (ibid. p. 6).

[87] So Mr. C. W. King in his appendix to Di Cesnola's /Cyprus/, p.
387. He supports his view by Herod. vii. 69.

[88] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 632.

[89] Compare the cylinder of Darius Hystaspis (/Ancient Monarchies/,
iii. 227) and another engraved on the same page.

[90] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 635, note.

[91] /Proceedings of the Society of Bibl. Archæology/ for 1883--4, p.
16.

[92] See M. A. Di Cesnola's /Salaminia/, Pls. xii. and xiii.

[93] See Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 639, No. 431.

[94] These fluttering ends of ribbon are very common in the Persian
representations. See /Ancient Monarchies/, iii. 351.

[95] /Ancient Monarchies/, iii. pp. 203, 204, 208.

[96] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 630.

[97] Ibid. pp. 635-639. Green serpentine is the most usual material
(C. W. King, in Di Cesnola's /Cyprus/, p. 387).

[98] King, in Di Cesnola's /Cyprus/, p. 388.

[99] Pl. xxxvi. a.

[100] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 277.

[101] See De Vogüé's /Mélanges d'Archéologie Orientale/, pl. v.

[102] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 631.

[103] See Di Cesnola's /Cyprus/, pl. xxvi. (top line).

[104] See Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 645.

[105] Ibid. p. 646.

[106] De Vogüé, /Mélanges/, p. 111.

[107] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 651.

[108] Ibid. p. 652.

[109] See Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pl. xxxvi. fig. 8.

[110] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 646.

[111] Herod. vii. 61.

[112] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pl. xxxv. fig. a.

[113] Herod. v. 113.

[114] That of Canon Spano. (See Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 655, note 1.)

[115] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 656, 657, Nos. 466, 467, 468.

[116] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. p. 655.

[117] Ibid. p. 656, Nos. 464, 465.

[118] See the author's /History of Ancient Egypt/, ii. 47, 54, 70.

[119] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 657, 658, Nos. 471-476.

[120] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 655:--"La couleur parait y avoir été
employée d'une manière discrète; elle servait à faire ressortir
certains détails."

[121] Ross, /Reisen auf den griechischen Inseln/, iv. 100.

[122] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 666:--"On obtenait ainsi un ensemble
qui, malgré la rapidité du travail, ne manquait pas de gaieté,
d'harmonie et d'agrément."

[123] See Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pp. 65, 71, 91, 181, &c.; and Perrot
et Chipiez, iii. 686, 691, 699, &c.

[124] /Cyprus/, pl. xxix. (p. 333).

[125] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 704.


VIII
INDUSTRIAL ART AND MANUFACTURES

[1] Ezek. xxvii. 18.

[2] Ibid. xxvii. 21.

[3] See Herod. ii. 182, and compare the note of Sir G. Wilkinson on
that passage in Rawlinson's /Herodotus/, ii. 272.

[4] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 246.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Hom. /Il./ vi. 289; /Od./ xv. 417; Æsch. /Suppl./ ll. 279-284;
Lucan, /Phars./ x. 142, &c.

[7] Ex. xxvi. 36, xxviii. 39.

[8] Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 877.

[9] Smyth, /Mediterranean Sea/, pp. 205-207.

[10] Tristram, /Land of Israel/, p. 51.

[11] Lortet, /La Syrie d'aujourd'hui/, p. 103.

[12] See /Phil. Transactions/, xv. 1,280.

[13] Wilksinson, in Rawlinson's /Herodotus/, ii. 347.

[14] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 258.

[15] See Jul. Pollux, /Onomasticon/, i. 4, § 45.

[16] This is the case with almost all the refuse shells found in the
"kitchen middens" (as they have been called) on the Syrian coast.
See Lortet, /La Syrie d'aujourd'hui/, p. 103).

[17] See Réaumur, quoted by Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 256.

[18] Plin. /H. N./ ix. 38.

[19] See Grimaud de Caux's paper in the /Revue de Zoologie/ for 1856,
p. 34; and compare Lortet, /La Syrie d'aujourd'hui/, p. 102.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Lortet, /La Syrie d'aujourd'hui/, p. 127.

[22] Plin. /H. N./ xxxii. 22.

[23] Ibid. ix. 37-39.

[24] For the tints producible, see a paper by M. Lacaze-Duthiers, in
the /Annales des Sciences Naturelles/ for 1859, Zoologie, 4me.
série, xii. 1-84.

[25] Plin. /H. N./ ix. 41.

[26] Ibid. ix. 39:--"Cornelius Nepos, qui divi Augusti principatu
obiit. Me, inquit, juvene violacea purpura vigebat, cujus libra
denariis centum venibat."

[27] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 242. Compare Pliny, /H. N./ ix. 38:--
"Laus summa in colore sanguinis concreti."

[28] /Hist. Nat./ xxxvi. 65.

[29] Wilkinson, in Rawlinson's /Herodotus/, ii. 82. Similar
representations occur in tombs near the Pyramids.

[30] Wilksinson, /Manners and Customs/, iii. 88.

[31] Herod. ii. 86-88.

[32] Plin. /H. N./ v 19; xxxvi. 26, &c.

[33] Lortet, /La Syrie d'aujourd'hui/, p. 113.

[34] Ibid. p. 127.

[35] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 735, note 2.

[36] Plin. /H. N./ xxxvi. 26.

[37] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 739.

[38] See Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 734-744.

[39] Perrot et Chipiez, /Histore de l'Art/, iii. pl. viii. No. 2 (opp. p. 740).

[40] Ibid. pl. vii. No. 1 (opp. p. 734).

[41] Herod. ii. 44.

[42] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 745, and pl. x.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 746, No. 534.

[45] Ibid. pp. 739, 740.

[46] See Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 740, 741.

[47] The British Museum has a mould which was found at Camirus,
intended to give shape to glass earrings. It is of a hard greenish
stone, apparently a sort of breccia.

[48] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 745.

[49] Strabo, iii. 5, § 11.

[50] Scylax, /Periplus/, § 112.

[51] Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 669. (Compare Renan
Mission de Phénicie/, pl. xxi.)

[52] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 670. The vase is figured on p. 670, No. 478.

[53] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 68. Compare Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de
l'Art/, iii. 671, No. 479.

[54] Perrot et Chipiez, l.s.c.

[55] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, appendix, p. 408.

[56] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 685, No. 485.

[57] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 102. Compare Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist.
de l'Art/, iii. 675, No. 483.

[58] So Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 332, and Mr. Murray, of the British
Museum, ibid., appendix, pp. 401, 402.

[59] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 693-695.

[60] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pp. 394, 402, and pl. xlii. fig. 4.

[61] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 698.

[62] Ibid. p. 676, No. 484; p. 691, No. 496; and p. 697, No. 505.

[63] Ibid. p. 730.

[64] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 282, and pl. xxx.

[65] Ibid.

[66] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 866-868. Compare Di
Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pl. x.

[67] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pp. 335, 336, and pls. iv. and xxx.; Perrot
et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 831, 862, 863, &c.

[68] Di Cesnola, l.s.c.; Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 864.

[69] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pl. xx.

[70] Perrot et Chipiez, iv. 15, 66-68, 70; Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 203.

[71] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 870, 871.

[72] Ibid. p. 867, No. 633.

[73] Ibid. iv. 94.

[74] Perrot et Chipiez, iv. 94, No. 91.

[75] Ibid. p. 67, No. 53.

[76] Ibid. iii. 862, No. 629.

[77] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. p. 863.

[78] De Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 336.

[79] See Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 133, Nos. 80, 81.

[80] Di Cesnola, p. 335.

[81] See Ezek. xxvii. 12; Strab. iii. 2, § 8.

[82] Plutarch, /Vit. Alex. Magni/, § 32.

[83] Ceccaldi, /Monumens Antiques de Cyprus/, p. 138; Di Cesnola,
/Cyprus/, p. 282; Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 874.

[84] Plutarch, /Vit. Demetrii/, § 21.

[85] Hom. /Il./ xi. 19-28.

[86] 2 Chron. ii. 14. Iron, in the shape of nails and rings, has been
found in several graves in Phœnicia Proper, where the coffin seems
to have been of wood (Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 866).

[87] Strab. iii. 5, § 11.

[88] Ezek. xxvii. 12.

[89] See Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iv. 80.

[90] Ibid. iii. 815, No. 568.

[91] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 427, and pl. lx. fig. 1; Perrot
et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 177, No. 123.


IX
SHIPS, NAVIGATION, AND COMMERCE

[1] Plin. /H. N./ vii. 56.

[2] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 517, No. 352.

[3] Layard, /Nineveh and its Remains/, ii. 383.

[4] Compare the practice of the Egyptians (Rosellini, /Monumenti
Storici/, pl. cxxxi.)

[5] See Mionnet, /Déscript. de Médailles/, vol. vii. pl. lxi. fig. 1;
Gesenius, /Ling. Scripturæque Phœn. Monumenta/, pl. 36, fig. G;
Layard, /Nineveh and its Remains/, ii. 378.

[6] Layard, /Monuments of Nineveh/, first series, pl. 71; /Nineveh and
its Remains/, l.s.c.

[7] So Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 34.

[8] See Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pl. xlv.

[9] Herod. iii. 136.

[10] In later times there must have been more sails than one, since
Xenophon describes a Phœnician merchant ship as sailing by means
of a quantity of rigging, which implies /several/ sails (Xen.
/Œconom./ § 8).

[11] Scylax. /Periplus/, § 112.

[12] Thucyd. i. 13.

[13] Herod. l.s.c.

[14] See Herod. vii. 89-94.

[15] Ibid. vii. 44.

[16] Ibid. vii. 100.

[17] Xen. /Œconom./ § 8, pp. 11-16 (Ed. Schneider).

[18] Herodotus (iii. 37) says they were at the prow of the ship; but
Suidas (ad voc.) and Hesychius (ad voc.) place them at the stern.
Perhaps there was no fixed rule.

[19] The {pataikoi} of the Greeks probably representes the Hebrew
{...}, which is from {...}, "insculpere," and is applied in
Scripture to "carved work" of any kind. (See 1 Kings vi. 29; Ps.
lxxiv. 6; &c.) Some, however, derive the word from the Egyptian
name Phthah, or Ptah. (See Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 235.)

[20] Manilius, i. 304-308.

[21] Strab. /Geograph./ xv.

[22] Tarshish (Tartessus) was on the Atlantic coast, outside the Straits.

[23] Ezek. xxvii.

[24] Signified by one of its chief cities, Haran (now Harran).

[25] Signified by "the house of Togarmarh" (verse 14).

[26] Ionia, Cyprus, and Hellas are the Greek correspondents of Javan,
Chittim, and Elishah, Chittim representing Citium, the capital of Cyprus.

[27] Spain is intended by "Tarshish" (verse 12) == Tartessus, which
was a name given by the Phœnicians to the tract upon the lower
Bætis (Guadalquivir).

[28] See the /Speaker's Commentary/, ad loc.

[29] Strab. xv. 3, § 22.

[30] Minnith appears as an Ammonite city in the history of Jephthah
(Judg. xi. 33).

[31] Herod. ii. 37, 182; iii. 47.

[32] See Rawlinson's /Herodotus/, ii. 157; /History of Ancient Egypt/,
i. 509; Rosellini, /Mon. Civili/, pls. 107-109.

[33] See Herod. iii. 107; /History of Ancient Egypt/, ii. 222-224.

[34] That these were Arabian products appears from Herod. iii. 111,
112. They may be included in the "chief of all spices," which Tyre
obtained from the merchants of Sheba and Raamah (Ezek. xxvii. 22).

[35] Arabia has no ebony trees, and can never have produced elephants.

[36] See Ezek. xxvii. 23, 24. Canneh and Chilmad were probably
Babylonian towns.

[37] Upper Mesopotamia is indicated by one of its chief cities, Haran
(Ezek. xxvii. 23).

[38] Ezek. xxvii. 6. Many objects in ivory have been found in Cyprus.

[39] Ibid. verse 7. The /Murex brandaris/ is still abundant on the
coast of Attica, and off the island of Salamis (Perrot et Chipiez,
/Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 881).

[40] Strab. iii. 2, § 8-12; Diod. Sic. v. 36; Plin. /H. N./ iii. 3.

[41] See Gen. xxxvii. 28.

[42] Isaiah xxi. 13.

[43] Ibid. lx. 6.

[44] Ibid. verses 6, 7.

[45] Heeren, /Asiatic Nations/, ii. 93, 100, 101.

[46] 1 Kings v. 11; 2 Chr. ii. 10.

[47] Ezek. xxvii. 17.

[48] Ezra iii. 7.

[49] Acts xii. 20.

[50] 2 Chron. l.s.c.; Ezra l.s.c.; Ezek. xxvii. 6, 17.

[51] Ezek. l.s.c.

[52] Gen. xxxvii. 28.

[53] Strab. xvi. 2, § 41.

[54] Ezek. xxvii. 18.

[55] Strab. xv. 3, § 22.

[56] So Heeren (/As. Nat./ ii. 118). But there is a Helbon a little to
the north of Damascus, which is more probably intended.

[57] Ibid.

[58] See Amos, iii. 12, where some translate "the children of Israel
that dwell in Samaria in the corner of a bed, and upon a damask couch."

[59] Ezek. xxvii. 16.

[60] The Hebrew terms for Syria {...} and Edom {...} are constantly
confounded by the copyists, and we must generally look to the
context to determine which is the true reading.

[61] Herod. i. 1.

[62] Ibid. ii. 112.

[63] Ch. xxvii. 7.

[64] Egyptian pottery, scarabs, seals, figures of gods, and amulets,
are common on most Phœnician sites. The Sidonian sarcophagi,
including that of Esmunazar, are of an Egyptian stone.

[65] Herod. iii. 5, 6.

[66] Ibid. iii. 107; Strab. xvi. 4, § 19; Diod. Sic. ii. 49.

[67] Theophrast. /Hist. Plant./ ix. 4.

[68] Wilkinson, in the author's /Herodotus/, iii. 497, note 6; Heeren,
/As. Nat./ ii. 95.

[69] Is. lx. 7; Her. xlix. 29.

[70] Ezek. xxvii. 21.

[71] Ezek. xxvii. 20.

[72] Ex. xxvi. 7; xxxvi. 14.

[73] Ezek. xxvii. 15, 19-22.

[74] See Heeren, /Asiatic Nations/, ii. 96.

[75] Ibid. pp. 99, 100.

[76] Gerrha, Sanaa, and Mariaba were flourishing towns in Strabo's
time, and probably during several centuries earlier.

[77] Ezek. xxvii. 23, 24.

[78] Herod. i. 1.

[79] See Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pls. xxxi.-xxxiii.; A. Di Cesnola,
/Salaminia/, ch. xii.; Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 636-639.

[80] Layard, /Monuments of Nineveh/, 2nd series, pls. 57-67; /Nineveh
and Babylon/, pp. 183-187.

[81] Ezek. xxvii. 23.

[82] So Heeren translates (/As. Nat./ ii. 123).

[83] Ezek. xxvii. 14.

[84] Strab. xi. 14, § 9:--{'Estin ippobotos sphodra e khora}.

[85] Ibid.

[86] 1 Kings i. 33; Esth. viii. 10, 14.

[87] Ezek. xxvii. 13.

[88] Xen. /Anab./ iv. 1, § 6.

[89] Hom. /Od./ xv. 415-484; Herod. i. 1.

[90] Joel iii. 6.

[91] Ezek. xxvii. 13.

[92] Herod. v. 5.

[93] Herod. ii. 32.

[94] Ibid. iv. 183.

[95] Ibid.

[96] Ibid. iv. 181-184. Compare Heeren, /African Nations/, ii. pp.
202-235.

[97] No doubt some of these may have been imparted by the Cyprians
themselves, and others introduced by the Egyptians when they held
Cyprus; but they are too numerous to be accounted for sufficiently
unless by a continuous Phœnician importation.

[98] Especially Etruria, which was advanced in civilisation and the
arts, while Rome was barely emerging from barbarism.

[99] 2 Chron. ii. 14.

[100] Dennis, /Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria/, ii. 204, 514;
Gerhard, /Etruskische Spiegel/, passim.

[101] Schliemann, /Mycenæ/, Pls. 357-519.

[102] Ezek. xxvii. 12; Plin. /H. N./ xxxiv. 16; &c.

[103] Strabo, iii. 5, § 11.

[104] Ibid. In Roman times the pigs of tin were brought to the Isle of
Wight by the natives, thence transported across the Channel, and
conveyed through Gaul to the mouth of the Rhône (Diod. Sic. v. 22).

[105] Heeren, /Asiatic Nations/, ii. 80.

[106] Hom. /Od./ xv. 460. Some doubt, however, if amber is here intended.

[107] Scylax, /Periplus/, § 112.

[108] Herod. iv. 196.

[109] These forests (spoken of by Diodorus, v. 19) have now to a great
extent been cleared away, though some patches still remain,
especially in the more western islands of the group. The most
remarkable of the trees is the /Pinus canariensis/.

[110] Pliny, /H. N./ vi. 32, sub fin.

[111] Pliny, l.s.c. The breed is now extinct.

[112] The savagery of the ancient inhabitants of the mainland is
strongly marked in the narrative of Hanno (/Periplus/, passim).

[113] As Heeren (/As. Nat./ ii. 71, 75, 239).

[114] Ezek. xxvii. 15, 20, 23.

[115] See 1 Kings x. 22; 2 Chr. ix. 21.

[116] 1 Kings ix. 26, 27.

[117] Ibid. x. 11; 2 Chr. ix. 10.

[118] Gen. x. 29. Compare Twistleton, in Dr. Smith's /Dictionary of
the Bible/, vol. ii. ad voc. OPHIR.

[119] Ps. lxxii. 15; Ezek. xxvii. 22; Strab. xvi. 4, § 18; Diod. Sic.
ii. 50.

[120] Ezel. l.s.c.; Strab. xvi. 4, § 20.

[121] There are no sufficient data for determining what tree is
intended by the almug or algum tree. The theory which identifies
it with the "sandal-wood" of India has respectable authority in
its favour, but cannot rise beyond the rank of a conjecture.

[122] If Scylax of Cadyanda could sail, in the reign of Darius
Hystaspis, from the mouth of the Indus to the Gulf of Suez (Herod.
iv. 44), there could have been no great difficulty in the
Phœnicians accomplishing the same voyage in the opposite direction
some centuries earlier.


X
MINING

[1] Diod. Sic. v. 35, § 2.

[2] Brugsch, /History of Egypt/, i. 65; Birch, /Ancient Egypt/, p. 65.

[3] Deut. viii. 7-9.

[4] Plin. /H. N./ xxxiv. 2:--"In Cypro proma æris inventio." The story
went, that Cinryas, the Paphian king, who gave Agamemnon his
breastplate of steel, gold, and tin (Hom. /Il./ xii. 25), invented
the manufacture of copper, and also invented the tongs, the
hammer, the lever, and the anvil (Plin. /H. N./ vii. 56, § 195).

[5] Strab. xiv. 6, § 5; Steph. Byz. ad voc. {Tamasos}.

[6] See the /Dictionary of Gk. and Rom. Geography/, i. 729.

[7] Ross, /Inselnreise/, iv. 157, 161.

[8] Plin. /H. N./ l.s.c.

[9] Herod. vi. 47.

[10] Plin. /H. N./ vi. 56; Strab. xiv. 5, § 28.

[11] See the description of Thasos in the /Géographie Universelle/, i. 142.

[12] Herod. vii. 112; Aristot. /De Ausc. Mir./ § 42; Thuc. iv. 105;
Diod. Sic. xvi. 8; App. /Bell. Civ./ iv. 105; Justin, viii. 3;
Plin. /H. N./ vii. 56, &c.

[13] Col. Leake speaks of /one/ silver mine as still being worked
(/Northern Greece/, iii. 161).

[14] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iv. 99.

[15] Ibid. p. 100, note.

[16] Plin. /H. N./ xxxiii. 4, § 21.

[17] Ibid. xxxiii. 4, § 23.

[18] Diod. Sic. v. 35, § 1.

[19] Plin. /H. N./ xxxiii. 6, § 31.

[20] Ibid. § 96.

[21] Strab. iii. 2, § 8; Diod. Sic. v. 36, § 2.

[22] Ap. Strab. iii. 2, § 9. Compare Diod. Sic. v. 38, § 4.

[23] Strab. l.s.c.

[24] Plin. /H. N./ xxxiv. 16, § 156.

[25] Plin. /H. N./ xxxiv. 16, § 158 and § 165.

[26] Polyb. xxxiv. 5, § 11; Plin. /H. N./ xxxiv. 16, § 158.

[27] Plin. xxxiv. 18, § 173.

[28] Ibid. § 159.

[29] Ibid. xxxiv. 17, § 164.

[30] Quicksilver is still among the products of the Spanish mines,
where its presence is noted by Pliny (/H. N./ xxxiii. 6, § 99).

[31] Diod. Sic. v. 36, § 2.

[32] Ibid. {Kai plagias kai skolias diaduseis poikilos
metallourgountes}.

[33] Pliny says "flint," but this can scarcely have been the material.
(See Plin. /H. N./ xxxiii. 4, § 71.)

[34] Ibid. § 70.

[35] Ibid. § 73.

[36] Diod. Sic. v. 37, § 3.

[37] Diod. Sic. v. 37, § 3. Compare Strab. iii. 2, § 9.

[38] Plin. /H. N./ xxxiii. 4, § 69.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 263.

[41] Diod. Soc. v. 38, § 1.

[42] Kenrick thinks that the Carthaginians "introduced the practice of
working the mines by slave labour" (/Phœnicia/, l.s.c.); but to me
the probability appears to be the other way.

[43] See Wilkinson, in the author's /Herodotus/, ii. 504.

[44] Herod. iii. 96.


XI
RELIGION

[1] Renan, /Histoire des Langues Sémitiques/, p. 5.

[2] Ithobal, father of Jezebel, was High Priest of Ashtoreth (Menand.
Ephes. Fr. 1). Amastarte, the mother of Esmunazar II. (/Records of
the Past/, ix. 113) was priestess of the same deity.

[3] As figures of Melkarth, or Esmun, or dedications to Baal, as lord
of the particular city issuing it.

[4] Herod. iii. 37.

[5] For the fragments of the work which remain, see the /Fragmenta
Historicum Græcorum/ of C. Müller, iii. 561-571. Its value has
been much disputed, but seems to the present writer only slight.

[6] Compare Max Müller, /Science of Religion/, p. 177 et seqq.

[7] Gen. xiv. 18-22.

[8] Philo Bybl. Fr. 1, § 5.

[9] /Records of the Past/, iv. 109, 113.

[10] Gen. vi. 5.

[11] Ps. cxxxix. 2.

[12] Max Müller, /Chips from a German Workshop/, i. 28.

[13] Philo Bybl. Fr. 1, § 5. Compare the /Corpus Ins. Semit./ vol. i.
p. 29.

[14] See Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, pl. xxxii.; Gesenius, /Linguæ
Scripturæque Phœniciæ Monumenta/, Tab. xxi.

[15] 2 Kings xxiii. 5. Compare verse 11.

[16] Gesenius, /Monumenta Phœnicia/, p. 96.

[17] Ibid. pp. 276-278.

[18] See Döllinger's /Judenthum und Heidenthum/, i. 425; E. T.

[19] Döllinger, /Judenthum und Heidenthum/, i. 425, E. T. Compare
Gesenius, /Mon. Phœn./ Tab. xxiii.

[20] Herod. ii. 44; Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 77.

[21] Judg. ii. 11; iii. 7; x. 6, &c.

[22] 2 Kings i. 2.

[23] Strab. iii. 5, § 5.

[24] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iv. 113.

[25] 2 Kings iii. 2.

[26] See the representation in Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 73.

[27] Döllinger, /Judenthum und Heidenthum/, i. 427.

[28] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 77.

[29] Gen. xiv. 5.

[30] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 419, 450, 555, &c.

[31] Ibid. p. 554.

[32] Curtius, in the /Archäologische Zeitung/ for 1869, p. 63.

[33] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 303.

[34] Menand. Ephes. Fr. 1.

[35] See Philo Bybl. Fe. ii. 8, § 14; {'Ilon ton kai Kronon}.
Damascius ap. Phot. /Bibl./ p. 1050.

[36] Philo. Bybl. Fr. ii. 8, § 17.

[37] Diod. Sic. xx. 14.

[38] Philo Bybl. Fr. ii. 8, § 25.

[39] Ibid. Fr. iv.

[40] Ibid. Fr. ii. 8, § 14-19.

[41] /Karth/ or /Kartha/, is probably the root of Carthage,
Carthagena, Carteia, &c., as Kiriath is of Kiriathaim, Kiriath-
arba, Kiriath-arim, &c.

[42] Melicertes is the son of Demaroüs and the grandson of Uranus;
Baal-samin is a god who stands alone, "without father, without
mother, without descent."

[43] See Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 567, 577, 578;
Gesenius, /Mon. Phœn./ Tab. xxxvii. I.

[44] Herod. ii. 44.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Strab. iii. 5, § 4-6.

[47] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 575.

[48] Ibid. p. 574.

[49] Strab. iii. 5, § 5.

[50] Sil. Ital. iii. 18-20.

[51] Ibid. iii. 21-27.

[52] 1 Sam. v. 2-5; 1 Mac. x. 18.

[53] Philo Bybl. Fr. ii. 8, § 14.

[54] Ibid. § 20.

[55] Layard, /Ninev. and Bab./ p. 343; Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 323.

[56] See 2 Sam. viii. 3, and 1 Kings xv. 18, where the names Hadad-
ezer and Ben-hadad suggest at any rate the worship of Hadad.

[57] Macrob. /Saturnalia/, i. 23.

[58] So Macrobius, l.s.c. Compare the representations of the Egyptian
Sun-God, Aten, in the sculpures of Amenhotep IV. (See the /Story
of Egypt/, in G. Putnam's Series, p. 225.)

[59] The /h/ in "Hadad" is /he/ ({...}), but in /chad/ it is /heth/
({...}). The derivation also leaves the reduplication of the
/daleth/ unaccounted for.

[60] Philo Bybl. Fr. ii. 24, § 1.

[61] Zech. xii. 11.

[62] 1 Kings i. 18; 2 Kings v. 18.

[63] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 311.

[64] Ezek. viii. 14.

[65] The Adonis myth is most completely set forth by the Pseudo-
Lucian, /De Dea Syra/, § 6-8.

[66] Philo Bybl. Fr. ii. 8, § 11.

[67] Ibid.

[68] "King of Righteousness" and "Lord of Righteousness" are the
interpretations usually given; but "Zedek is my King" and "Zedek
is my Lord" would be at least equally admissible.

[69] Berytus was under the protection of the Cabeiri generally (Philo
Bybl. ii. 8, § 25) and of Esmun in particular. Kenrick says that
he had a temple there (/Phœnicia, p. 327).

[70] Cyprian inscriptions contain the names of Bar-Esmun, Abd-Esmun,
and Esmun-nathan; Sidonian ones those of two Esmun-azars. Esmun's
temple at Carthage was celebrated (Strab. xvii. 14; Appian, viii.
130). His worship in Sardinia is shown by votive offerings (Perrot
et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 308).

[71] Ap. Phot. /Bibliothec./ Cod. ccxlii. p. 1074.

[72] Pausan. viii. 23.

[73] The name /Astresmunim/, "herb of Esmun," given by Dioscorides
(iv. 71) to the /solanum/, which was regarded as having medicinal
qualities, is the nearest approach to a proof that the Phœnicians
themselves connected Esmun with the healing art.

[74] Philo Bybl. Fr. ii. 8, § 11.

[75] Herod. ii. 51; Kenrick, /Egypt/, Appendix, pp. 264-287.

[76] Philo Bybl. l.s.c.

[77] Herod. iii. 37; Suidas ad voc. {pataikos}; Hesych. ad voc. {Kabeiroi}.

[78] Strab. x. 3, § 7.

[79] Gen. ix. 22; x. 6. Compare the author's /Herodotus/, iv. 239-241.

[80] Herod. iii. 37.

[81] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 65, 78, &c.

[82] Gesenius, /Mon. Phœn./ Tab. xxxix.

[83] Berger, /La Phénicie/, p. 24; Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 70.

[84] Pausan. ix. 12; Nonnus, /Dionysiac./ v. 70; Steph. Byz. ad voc.
{'Ogkaiai}; Hesych. ad voc. {'Ogka}; Scholiast. ad Pind. /Ol./ ii. &c.

[85] As Stephen and Hesychius.

[86] Philo Bybl. Fr. ii. § 24.

[87] The "Oncæan" gate at Thebes is said to have taken its name from her.

[88] Gesen. /Mon. Phœn. p. 113.

[89] Ibid. pp. 168-177.

[90] Prosper, /Op./ iii. 38; Augustine, /De Civ. Dei/, ii. 3.

[91] Gesen. /Mon. Ph./ Tab. ix.

[92] Ibid. p. 168.

[93] Apul. /Metamorph./ xi. 257.

[94] Gesen. /Mon. Ph./ Tab. xvi.

[95] Ibid. pp. 115-118.

[96] See the author's /History of Ancient Egypt/, i. 400.

[97] See the Fragments of Philo Bybl. Fr. ii. 8, § 19.

[98] Ibid. § 25.

[99] See Sir H. Rawlinson's /Essay on the Religion of the Babylonians
and Assyrians/, in the author's /Herodotus/, i. 658.

[100] So Gesenius, /Mon. Phœn./ p. 402; Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 301,
and others.

[101] There seems also to have been a tendency to increase the number
of the gods by additions, of which the foreign origin is, at any
rate, "not proven." Among the deities brought into notice by the
later Phœnicians are--1. Zephon, an equivalent of the Egyptian
Typhon, but probably a god of Phœnician origin (Ex. xiv. 2); 2.
Sad or Tsad, sometimes apparently called Tsadam; 3. Sakon or
Askun, a name which forms perhaps the first element in Sanchon-
iathon (= Sakon-yithan); 4. Elat, a goddess, a female form of El,
perhaps equivalent to the Arabian Alitta (Herod. i. 131) or Alilat
(ibid. iii. 8); 5. 'Aziz, a god who was perhaps common to the
Phœnicians with the Syrians, since Azizus is said to have been
"the Syrian Mars;" and 6. Pa'am {...}, a god otherwise unknown.
(See the /Corpus Inscr. Semit./ i. 122, 129, 132, 133, 144, 161,
197, 333, 404, &c.)

[102] Gesenius, /Mon. Phœn./ pp. 96, 110, &c.; /Corpus Ins. Semit./
Fasc. ii. pp. 154, 155.

[103] Ibid. p. 99 and Tab. xl. A.

[104] Steph. Byz. ad voc. {'Amathous}.

[105] Lucian, /De Dea Syra/, § 7.

[106] Plut. /De Is. et Osir./ § 15, 16; Steph. Byz. l.s.c.; Gesen.
/Mon. Phœn./ pp. 96, 110.

[107] Gesen. /Mon. Phœn./ Tab. xxi.

[108] Ibid. pp. 168, 174, 175, 177.

[109] Ibid. Tab. xxi.

[110] Ibid. pp. 197, 202, 205.

[111] Ibid. Tab. xxi. and Tab. xxiii.

[112] Lucian, /De Dea Syria/, § 54.

[113] Clermont-Ganneau, in the /Journal Asiatique/, Série vii. vol.
xi. 232, 444.

[114] Lucian, § 42.

[115] Ibid. Compare the 450 prophets of Baal at Samaria (1 Kings
xviii. 19).

[116] Lucian, l.s.c.

[117] Ibid. Lucian's direct testimony is conined to Hierapolis, but
his whole account seems to imply the closest possible connection
between the Syrian and Phœnician religious usages.

[118] Lucian, § 49.

[119] Lucian, § 50: {'Aeidousi enthea kai ira asmata}.

[120] Gesenius, /Scripturæ Linguæque Phœniciæ Monumenta/, Tab. 6,
9, 10, &c.; /Corp. Ins. Semit./ Tab. ix. 52; xxii. 116, 117; xxiii. 115 A, &c.

[121] Gesen. Tab. 15, 16, 17, 21, &c.; /Corp. Ins. Semit./ Tab. xliii.
187, 240; liv. 352, 365, 367, 369, &c.

[122] /Revue Archéologique/, 2me Série, xxxvii. 323.

[123] Jarchi on Jerem. vii. 31.

[124] Diod. Sic. xx. 14.

[125] 2 Kings iii. 27; xvi. 3; xxi. 6; Micah vi. 7.

[126] Plutarch, /De Superstitione/, § 13.

[127] Döllinger, /Judenthum und Heidenthum/, i. 427, E. T.

[128] /Judenthum und Heidenthum/, book vi. § 4 (i. 428, 429 of N.
Darnell's translation).

[129] Herod. i. 199; Strab. xvi. 1058; Baruch vi. 43.

[130] /De Dea Syra/, § 6.

[131] /Judenthum und Heidenthum/, l.s.c. p. 429; Engl. Trans.

[132] Euseb. /Vit. Constantin. Magni/, iii. 55, § 3.

[133] See 1 Kings xiv. 24; xv. 12; xxii. 46; 2 Kings xxiii. 7.

[134] Lucian, /De Dea Syra/, § 50-52; /Corp. Ins. Semit./ vol. i.
Fasc. 1, p. 92; Liv. xxix. 10, 14; xxxvi. 36; Juv. vi. 512; Ov.
/Fast./ iv. 237; Mart. /Ep./ iii. 31; xi. 74; Plin. /H. N./ v. 32;
xi. 49; xxxv. 13; Propert. ii. 18, l. 15; Herodian, § 11.

[135] Lucian, § 51.

[136] Ibid. § 50.

[137] Döllinger, /Judenthum und Heidenthum/ (i. 431; Engl. Tr.).
Compare Senec. /De Vita Beata/, § 27; Lact. § 121.

[138] Liban. /Opera/, xi. 456, 555; cxi. 333.

[139] Compare Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de l'Art/, iii. 210, 232,
233, 236; Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pp. 66, 67, &c. In the anthropoeid
sarcophagi, a hole is generally bored from the cavity of the ear
right through the entire thickness of the stone, in order,
apparently, that the corpse might hear the prayers addressed to it
(Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 139).

[140] One of Esmunazar's curses on those who should disturb his
remains is a prayer that they may not be "held in honour among the
Manes" (/Corps. Ins. Semit./ vol. i. Fasc. 1, p. 9). A funereal
inscription translated by Gesenius (/Mon. Phœn./ p. 147) ends with
the words, "After rain the sun shines forth."

[141] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 139.

[142] Job iii. 11-19.

[143] The compilers of the /Corpus Ins. Smit./ edit 256 of these, and
then stop, fearing to weary the reader (i. 449).

[144] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 325.

[145] Ibid. p. 146.

[146] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pp. 306-334.


XII
DRESS, ORNAMENTS, AND SOCIAL HABITS

[1] See also Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 233; Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist.
de l'Art/, iii. 405, 447, 515, &c.

[2] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 428, 527, 531, 533, 534, &c.

[3] Ibid. pp. 527, 545; Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 145.

[4] Perrot et Chipiez, p. 538.

[5] Ibid. pp. 539, 547; Di Cesnola, pp. 143, 145, 149, 151, &c.

[6] Di Cesnola, pp. 141, 145, 149, 151, 153, 240, 344.

[7] Ibid. pp. 141, 143, 149; Perrot et Chipiez, pp. 511, 513, 531, &c.

[8] Perrot et Chipiez, pp. 519, 523, &c.

[9] Ibid. pp. 531, 533; Di Cesnola, pp. 129, 131, &c.

[10] Perrot et Chipiez, pp. 527, 533, 539; Di Cesnola, pp. 129, 145, 154.

[11] Di Cesnola, p. 306.

[12] Ibid. Pls. xlvi. and xlvii.; Perrot et Chipiez, pp. 205, 643, 837.

[13] Di Cesnola, p. 132.

[14] Perrot et Chipiez, pp. 64, 450, 555, 557; Di Cesnola, Pls vi. and
xv.; also p. 275.

[15] Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 431.

[16] Perrot et Chipiez, pp. 202, 451, 554.

[17] Ibid. pp. 473, 549; Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 230.

[18] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 549.

[19] Ibid. pp. 189, 549, 565.

[20] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, 141, 190, 230.

[21] Ibid. pp. 141, 191.

[22] Ibid. p. 141.

[23] Is. iii. 18-23.

[24] Perrot et Chipiez, pp. 257, 450, 542, 563, 824.

[25] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pl. xxiii.; Perrot et Chipiez, /Histoire de
l'Art/, iii. 819, A.

[26] Di Cesnola, pl. xxii.; Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 819, B.

[27] Di Cesnola, p. 315.

[28] See plate x. in Perrot et Chipiez, iii. opp. p. 824.

[29] Ibid. pp. 826, 827.

[30] Compare Di Cesnola, pl. xxv.; Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 826.

[31] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 826.

[32] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 311.

[33] Ibid. Compare Perrot et Chipiez, p. 832.

[34] These bracelets are in Paris, in the collection of M. de Clercq
(Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 832).

[35] Ibid.

[36] This bracelet is in silver, but the head of the lion has been
gilded. It is now in the British Museum.

[37] Perrot et Chipiez, p. 836; No. 604.

[38] Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, pp. 311, 312.

[39] Ibid. p. 312. Compare Perrot et Chipiez, p. 835.

[40] Perrot et Chipiez, l.s.c. (No. 603.)

[41] Perrot et Chipiez, p. 818: "Il y a dans les formes de ces boucles
d'orielles une étonnante variété."

[42] See his /Cyprus/, pl. xxv., and compare Perrot et Chipiez, iii.
819, fig. D.

[43] Perrot et Chipiez, p. 821; No. 577.

[44] Ibid. Nos. 578, 579.

[45] Di Cesnola, pl. xxvi.

[46] Perrot et Chipiez, p. 823.

[47] See Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 822; No. 582.

[48] Ibid. pp. 821, 822. Compare Di Cesnola, /Cyprus/, p. 297, and pl.
xxvii.

[49] Perrot et Chipiez, p. 823.

[50] Di Cesnola, p. 310; Perrot et Chipiez, p. 818; No. 574.

[51] Perrot et Chipiez, p. 818; No. 575.

[52] Di Cesnola, pl. xxviii.

[53] Ibid. pl. xxi.

[54] Perrot et Chipiez, pp. 830, 831.

[55] Perrot et Chipiez, p. 831; No. 595.

[56] Di Csnola, p. 316.

[57] Ibid. pl. xxi (opp. p. 312).

[58] Ibid. pl. xxx.

[59] Ibid. pl. ix.

[60] Compare Di Cesnola, p. 149.

[61] Ibid. pl. x.

[62] Ibid. p. 77; Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 783.

[63] Di Cesnola, p. 149.

[64] Ibid. pl. xiv.

[65] Ibid. pl. x.

[66] See Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 769, 771, 789.

[67] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 798.

[68] C. W. King, in Di Cesnola's /Cyprus/, pp. 363, 364.

[69] Mr. King says of it: "No piece of antique worked agate hitherto
known equals in magnitude and curiosity the ornament discovered
among the bronze and iron articles of the treasure. It is a sphere
about six inches in diameter, black irregularly veined with white,
having the exterior vertically scored with incised lines,
imitating, as it were, the gadroons of a melon" (ibid. p. 363).

[70] Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, Pls. xii. xiii.; Di Cesnola,
/Cyprus/, pls. iv. and xxx.; and pp. 335, 336.

[71] Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 846-853.

[72] 1 Kings xxii. 39.


XIII
PHŒNICIAN WRITING, LANGUAGE, AND LITERATURE

[1] This follows from the fact that the Greeks, who tell us that they
got their letters from the Phœnicians, gave them names only
slightly modified from the Hebrew.

[2] See Dr. Ginsburg's /Moabite Stone/, published in 1870.

[3] See /Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund/ for
October 1881, pp. 285-287.

[4] /Corp. Ins. Semit./ i. 224-226.

[5] Herod. v. 58; Diod. Sic. v. 24; Plin. /H. N./ v. 12; vii. 56;
Tacit. /Ann./ xi. 14; Euseb. /Chron. Can./ i. 13; &c.

[6] Capt. Conder, in the /Quarterly Statement of the Palestine
Exploration Fund/, Jan. 1889, p. 17.

[7] /Encycl. Britann./ i. 600 and 606.

[8] Conder, in /Quarterly Statement/, &c. l.s.c.

[9] See Gesenius, /Mon. Phœn./ Tab. 19 and 20.

[10] See the /Corpus Ins. Semit./ i. 3, 30, 73, &c.; Gesenius, /Mon.
Phœn./ Tab. 29-33.

[11] See on this entire subject Gesenius, /Scripturæ Linguæque
Phœniciæ Monumenta/, pp. 437-445; Movers, article on /Phœnizien/
in the /Cyclopädie/ of Ersch and Gruber; Renan, /Histoire des
Langues Sémitiques/, pp. 189-192.

[12] Renan, /Histoire/, &c., p. 186.

[13] Philo Byblius, Fr. i.

[14] Philo Byblius, Fr. ii. § 5-8.

[15] Ibid. Fr. v.

[16] /The Voyage of Hanno translated, and accompanied with the Greek
Text/, by Thomas Falconer, M.A., London, 1797.

[17] Quoted by Falconer in his second "Dissertation," p. 67.

[18] See the /Histoire des Langues Sémitiques/ (p. 186):--"Les
monuments épigraphiques viennent heureusement combler en partie
cette lacune."

[19] See the /Corpus Inscr. Semit./ i. 13.

[20] /Corpus Inscr. Semit./ i. 20.

[21] /Story of Phœnicia/, p. 269.

[22] On the age of Jehavmelek, see M. Renan's remarks in the /Corpus
Inscriptionum Semit./ i. 8.

[23] Ibid. p. 3.

[24] I have followed the translation of M. Renan (/Corp. Ins. Semit./ i. 8).

[25] See the /Corpus Inscr. Semit./ i. 226-236.

[26] See the /Corp. Inscr. Sem./ i. 30-32.

[27] Gesenius, /Script. Linguæque Phœn. Monumenta/, p. 177.

[28] Ibid. p. 96.

[29] See the /Corpus Inscr. Semit./ i. 36-39.

[30] Ibid. pp. 110-112.

[31] Ibid. p. 69.

[32] Ibid. p. 76.

[33] See the /Corpus Inscr. Semit./ pp. 67, 68.

[34] Gesenius, /Scripturæ Linguæque Phœn. Mon./ p. 144.

[35] Ibid. p. 147.

[36] Ibid. p. 187.

[37] See the fragments of Dius and Menander, who followed the Tyrian
historians (Joseph. /Contr. Ap./ i. 18).

[38] Ap. Strab. xvii. 2, § 22.

[39] Ibid.

[40] See Sallust, /Bell. Jugurth./ § 17; Cic. /De Orat./ i. 58; Amm.
Marc. xxii. 15; Solin. /Polyhist./ § 34.

[41] Columella, xii. 4.

[42] Ibid. i. 1, § 6.

[43] Plin. /H. N./ xviii. 3.

[44] As Antipater and Apollonius, Stoic philosophers of Tyre (Strab.
l.s.c.), Boëthus and Diodotus, Peripatetics, of Sidon (ibid.),
Philo of Byblus, Hermippus of Berytus, and others.


XIV
POLITICAL HISTORY

[1] Gen. x. 15-18.

[2] "Canaanite" is used in a much wider sence, including all the
Syrian nations between the coast line and the desert.

[3] Mark vii. 26.

[4] Ezra iii. 7.

[5] 1 Kings v. 18 (marginal rendering).

[6] Ezek. xxvii. 11.

[7] Gen. x. 17, 18.

[8] Judg. i. 31.

[9] Brugsch, /Hist. of Egypt/, i. 222, et seq.

[10] See /Records of the Past/, ii. 110, 111.

[11] Josh. xi. 8; xix. 28.

[12] Judg. xviii. 7, 8.

[13] Ibid. i. 31.

[14] Ramantha (Laodicea) in later times claimed the rank of
"Metropolis," which implied a supremacy over other cities; but the
real chief power of the north was Aradus.

[15] Hom. /Il./ xxiii. 743.

[16] Ibid. 743-748.

[17] Hom. /Od./ iv. 613-619.

[18] Ibid. xv. 460 (Worsley's translation).

[19] Hom. /Il./ vi. 290-295 (Sotheby's translation).

[20] Scylax, /Periplus/, § 104.

[21] Cl. Julius, quoted by Stephen of Byzantium, ad voc. {DOROS}.

[22] Justin, /Hist. Philipp./ xviii. 3.

[23] Strab. xvi. ii. § 13.

[24] Appian, /De Rebus Punicus/, § 1, &c.

[25] Gesenius, /Mon. Phœn./ p. 267.

[26] The Sidonian vessel which carries off Eumæus quits the Sicilian
haven after sunset, and continues its voyage night and day without
stopping--{'Exemar men onos pleomen nuktas te kai e mar} (Hom.
/Od./ xv. 471-476).

[27] Strabo, xvi. 2, § 24.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Manilius, i. 304-309.

[30] Herod. i. 1.

[31] See Hom. /Odyss./ xv. 455.

[32] Herod. l.s.c.

[33] Hom. /Odyss./ xv. 403-484.

[34] Strabo, xvi. 2, § 14.

[35] We find hereditary monarchy among the Hittites (/Records of the
Past/, iv. 28), at Tyre (Menand. ap. Joseph. /Contr. Ap./ i. 18),
in Moab (/Records/, xi. 167), in Judah and Israel, in Syria (2
Kings, xiii. 24), in Ammon (2 Sam. x. 1), &c.

[36] 1 Sam. viii. 20.

[37] When kings are priests, it is noted as exceptional. (See Menand.
l.s.c.; /Inscription of Tabnit/, line 1.)

[38] Judg. x. 12.

[39] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 343.

[40] Josh. xix. 29.

[41] /Records of the Past/, ii. 111.

[42] Justin, /Hist. Phil./ xviii. 3.

[43] Claudian, /Bell. Gild./ l. 120.

[44] Solinus, /Polyhist./ § 29; Plin. /H. N./ v. 76.

[45] Herod. i. 1 ({nautiliai makrai}).

[46] Maspero, /Histoire Ancienne des Peuples de l'Orient/, p. 321.

[47] See the fragments of Philo Byblius, passim.

[48] Euseb. /Præp. Ev/. x. 9, § 12.

[49] Tatian, /Adv. Græc./ § 58.

[50] Cinyras and Belus are both connected with Cyprus as kings. The
Assyrians found kings there in all the cities (G. Smith, /Eponym
Canon./ p. 139). So the Persians (Herod. v. 104-110).

[51] Dius, Fr. 2; Menand. Fr. 1.

[52] Justin (xviii. 3) is scarcely an exception.

[53] See the fragments of Dius and Menander above cited.

[54] 1 Chr. xiv. 1.

[55] 2 Sam. vii. 2.

[56] 1 Chr. xxii. 4.

[57] 1 Kings v. 1.

[58] Joseph, /Ant. Jud./ viii. 2, § 6; 1 Kings, l.s.c.

[59] Ibid. viii. 2, § 8.

[60] See Joseph. /Ant. Jud./ viii. 2, § 7, and compare the letters
with their Hebrew counterparts in 1 Kings v. 3-6 and 7-9.

[61] 1 Kings v. 10-12.

[62] Ezek. xxvii. 17; Acts xii. 20.

[63] Menander, Fr. 1.

[64] 1 Kings v. 15, 18; 2 Chr. ii. 18.

[65] 1 Kings v. 17, 18.

[66] Ibid. vi. 18, 29.

[67] Ibid. verses 23-28.

[68] Ibid. verse 35.

[69] 2 Chron. iii. 14.

[70] Ibid. ii. 14.

[71] 1 Kings vii. 13.

[72] 1 Kings vii. 14; 2 Chron. ii. 14.

[73] 1 Kings vii. 46.

[74] Menander, Fr. 1; Dius, Fr. 2; Philostrat. /Vit. Apoll./ v. 5;
Sil. Ital. /Bell. Pun./ iii. 14, 22, 30.

[75] 1 Kings vii. 15-22.

[76] Ibid. verses 27-37.

[77] Ibid. vi. 38.

[78] Ibid. vii. 1. Compare ix. 10.

[79] Stanley, /Lectures on the Jewish Church/, ii. 165-167.

[80] See the Fragment of Menander above quoted, where Hiram is said to
have been fifty-three years old at his decease, and to have
reigned thirty-four years.

[81] Strabo, xvi. 2, § 23.

[82] Menander, l.s.c.

[83] So M. Renan, /Mission de Phénicie/, p. 369.

[84] Herod. ii. 44.

[85] Arrian, /Exped. Alex./ ii. 16, 24.

[86] So M. Renan, after careful examination (/Mission/, l.s.c.). The
earlier opinion placed the smaller island, with its Temple of
Baal, towards the north (Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 347).

[87] Menander, l.s.c.

[88] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 23, sub fin.

[89] Josh. xix. 27.

[90] See Robinson, /Later Researches/, pp. 87, 88.

[91] 1 Kings ix. 10-13.

[92] Justin, /Dial. c. Tryph./ § 34.

[93] Menand. ap. Clem. Alex. /Strom./ i. 386.

[94] 1 Kings xi. 1.

[95] Ibid. ix. 27.

[96] See 1 Kings x. 22. The distinctness of this navy from the one
which brought gold from Ophir has been maintained by Dean Stanley
(/Lectures on the Jewish Church/, ii. 156) and the Rev. J. Hammond
(/Pulpit Commentary/, Comment on 1 Kings, p. 213), as well as by
the present writer (/Speaker's Commentary/, ii. pp. 545, 546).

[97] Mela. iii. 1; Plin. /H. N./ iv. 22, § 115; Catull. xx. 30, &c.

[98] See Plin. /H. N./ iii. 3; xxxiii. 6; Polyb. x. 10; Strab. iii. 2,
§ 3 and 10.

[99] Herod. iv. 191; Plin. /H. N./ viii. 11.

[100] Hanno, /Periplus/, p. 6.

[101] Ibid. pp. 13, 14.

[102] 1 Kings ix. 26.

[103] 1 Kings x. 11.

[104] The case is excellently stated in Mr. Twistleton's article on
OPHIR in Dr. Smith's /Dictionry of the Bible/, vol. ii.

[105] As /almug/ or /algum/ which is "the Hebraised form of a Deccan
word for sandalwood" (Stanley, /Lectures/, ii. 157).

[106] 1 Kings ix. 28.

[107] /Contr. Ap./ i. 18.

[108] Kenrick argues in favour of {Kitioi} (/Phœnicia/, p. 357).

[109] See /Encycl. Britann./ ad voc. PHŒNICIA, xviii. 807.

[110] Menander, Fr. 2.

[111] Ibid.

[112] 1 Kings xvi. 31.

[113] The Assyrians probably found their way into Phœnicia through the
gap in the mountain line between Bargylus and Lebanon. Botrys
occupied a strong position between this gap and the southern
Phœnician cities, Gebal, Sidon, and Tyre.

[114] Menander, l.s.c. Aüza, which at a later date became Auzen, is
mentioned by Tacitus (/Ann./ iv. 25) and Ptolemy (/Geograph. iv. 2).

[115] The Greek /lamda/, {L}, readily passes into /delta/ {D}. Baal-
azar is found as a Phœnician name in an inscription (/Corp. Ins.
Semit./ i. 335, no. 256).

[116] See Gesen. /Mon. Phœn./ p. 410. /Mattan/, "a gift," was the name
borne by Athaliah's high priest of Baal (2 Kings xi. 18). It is
found as an element in several Phœnician names, as Mattan-elim
(/Corp. Ins. Semit./ i. 298, no. 194); Mattan-Baal (ibid. p. 309,
no. 212), &c.

[117] See Justin, /Hist. Phil./ xviii. 5.

[118] Menander, Fr. 1.

[119] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, pp. 363-367.

[120] /Contr. Ap./ i. 18.

[121] /Ancient Monarchies/, ii. 84-89.

[122] /Histoire Ancienne/, pp. 347, 348.

[123] /Ancient Monarchies/, ii. 90-99.

[124] /Ancient Monarchies/, ii. 102-106; /Eponym Canon/, pp. 108-114.

[125] /Eponym Canon/, p. 112, l. 45.

[126] Ibid. p. 108, l. 93.

[127] Ibid. p. 115, l. 14.

[128] Ibid. p. 120, ll. 33-35.

[129] When Assyria became mistress of the Upper Syria, the Orontes
valley, and the kingdom of Israel, she could have strangled the
Phœnician land commerce at a moment's notice.

[130] Is. xxiii. 2-8.

[131] /Eponym Canon/, p. 64.

[132] /Eponym Canon/, pp. 117-120.

[133] Ibid. p. 123, ll. 1-5.

[134] Ibid. p. 120, l. 28.

[135] In B.C. 720. (See /Eponym Canon/, p. 126, ll. 33-35.)

[136] Ezek. xxviii. 14.

[137] Menander ap. Joseph. /Ant. Jud./ ix. 14, § 2; /Eponym Canon/, p. 131.

[138] /Eponym Canon/, p. 132.

[139] Menander, l.s.c.

[140] Joseph, /Ant. Jud./ l.s.c. {'Epelthe polemon ten te Surian pasan
kai Phoiniken}.

[141] Ibid.

[142] A slab of Sennacherib's represents the Assyrian army entering a
city, probably Phœnician, at one end, while the inhabitants embark
on board their ships at the other (Layard, /Monuments of Nineveh/,
1st series, pl. 71; /Nin. and its Remains/, ii. 384).

[143] Menander, l.s.c.

[144] Compare Perrot et Chipiez, /Hist. de l'Art/, iii. 357, and
Lortet, /La Syrie d'aujourd'hui/, p. 128.

[145] Menander, ut supra.

[146] This folows from his taking refuge there when attacked by
Sennacherib (/Eponym Canon/, p. 136).

[147] Since Sennacherib calls him persistently "king of Sidon" (ibid.
p. 131, l. 2; p. 135, ll. 13, 17), not king of Tyre.

[148] It was the same army which lost 185,000 men by miracle in one
night (2 Kings xix. 35).

[149] 2 Kings xix. 23.

[150] /Eponym Canon/, p. 134, l. 11.

[151] /Records of the Past/, i. 35.

[152] /Eponym Canon/, p. 132.

[153] Ibid.

[154] /Eponym Canon/, p. 132, l. 14; p. 136, ll. 14, 19. "Tubaal" is
probably for Tob-baal, "Baal is good," like "Tabrimon" for Tob-
Rimmon, "Rimmon is good" (1 Kings xv. 18), and "Tabeal" for Tob-
El, "God is good" (Is. vii. 6).

[155] /Eponym Canon/, p. 132, ll. 15, 16.

[156] Ibid. ll. 19, 20.

[157] From the fact that Abd-Milkut is king of Sidon at the accession
of Esarhaddon (/Records of the Past/, iii. 111).

[158] Abd-Melkarth is one of the commonest of Phœnician names. It
occurs, either fully, or in the contracted form of Bod-Melkarth,
scores of times in the inscriptions of Carthage. The meaning is
"servant of Melkarth."

[159] /Records of the Past/, iii. 112.

[160] /Ancient Monarchies/, ii. 186.

[161] /Rec. of the Past/, iii. 111, 112.

[162] /Eponym Canon/ pp. 139, 140.

[163] Ibid. p. 140, Extract xxxviii. ll. 1-3.

[164] /Eponym Canon/, p. 140, Ext. xxxviii. ll. 4-9.

[165] Ibid. p. 141, Ext. xl.

[166] Ibid. p. 142, ll. 12, 13.

[167] /Eponym Canon/, p. 142, l. 14.

[168] See /Ancient Monarchies/ ii. 193.

[169] Ibid. p. 195.

[170] /Eponym Canon/, p. 143, Extr. xli. l. 3.

[171] /Eponym Canon/, pp. 143, 144. Six names are lost between the
eleventh line and the eighteenth. They may be supplied from the
broken cylinder of Esarhaddon (/Records of the Past/, iii. 107, 108.)

[172] /Eponym Canon/, pp. 144, 145, ll. 84-98.

[173] Ibid. p. 139, l. 17.

[174] /Records of the Past/, vol. i. p. 100.

[175] /Records of the Past/, i. 66; ix. 41.

[176] Ibid. iii. 67, ll. 116, 117.

[177] Ibid. i. 67, 68.

[178] See Judg. xix. 29; /Eponym Canon/, p. 132, l. 9.

[179] /Eponym Canon/, pp. 149, 149.

[180] /Eponym Canon/, p. 70.

[181] Herod. i. 103. B.C. 633 was, according to Herodotus, the year of
the accession of Cyaxares. His attack on Nineveh seems to have
followed shortly after.

[182] Herod. l.s.c. and iv. 1; Ezek. xxxviii. 2-16; Strabo, xi. 8, §
4; Diod. Sic. ii. 34, § 2-5.

[183] /Ancient Monarchies/, ii. 221.

[184] Stanley, /Lectures on the Jewish Church/, ii. 432, 433.

[185] Herod. i. 105; Strabo, i. 3, 16; Justin, ii. 3.

[186] Herod. l.s.c.; Hippocrat. /De Aëre, Aqua, et Locis/, vi. § 108.

[187] Herod. i. 73.

[188] Strabo, xi. 767; Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ iii. 8, § 4.

[189] Polyb. v. 70, § 4.

[190] /Ancient Monarchies/, ii. 228, note.

[191] /Ancient Monarchies/, ii. 232.

[192] Herod. ii. 157; and compare the author's /History of Ancient
Egypt/, ii. 467, note 6.

[193] Ezek. xxvii. 8.

[194] Ibid. verse 11.

[195] Ibid. verse 9.

[196] Ibid. xxviii. 2-5.

[197] Ezek. xxvii. 3-6, and 25.

[198] See the author's /History of Ancient Egypt/, ii. 472, note 1.

[199] Herod. ii. 159; 2 Kings xxiii. 29; 2 Chron. xxxv. 20-24.

[200] Herod. ii. 157.

[201] See Jer. xlvii. 1. Gaza, however, may not have been taken till
the campaign of B.C. 608.

[202] Herod. i. 105 raises the suspicion that Askelon, which was
nearer Egypt than Ashdod, may have belonged to Psamatik I.

[203] Ibid. ii. 159.

[204] 2 Kings xxiii. 19; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 6.

[205] /History of Ancient Egypt/, ii. 228.

[206] Judg. iv. 15; v. 19.

[207] 2 Chron. xxxv. 21.

[208] See Jer. xlvi. 2.

[209] Berosus, Fr. 1; 2 Kings xxiv. 7.

[210] Herod. iv. 42.

[211] Ibid. ii. 112.

[212] Berosus, l.s.c.

[213] Habakkuk, i. 6-10.

[214] Jer. xlvi. 3, 4.

[215] Ibid. verse 5.

[216] Ibid. verse 6.

[217] Jer. xlvi. 10.

[218] Ibid. verse 16.

[219] Ibid. verse 21.

[220] Stanley, /Lectures on the Jewish Church/, ii. 455.

[221] Ibid.

[222] Berosus, l.s.c. The extreme haste of the return is indicated by
the fact, which is noted, that Nebuchadnezzer himself, with a few
light troops, took the short cut across the desert, while his
army, with its prisoners, pursued the more usual route through the
valley of the Orontes, by Aleppo to Carchemish, and then along the
course of the Euphrates.

[223] See /History of Ancient Egypt/, ii. 480.

[224] Habak. i. 6.

[225] Menander ap. Joseph. /Contr. Ap./ i. 21.

[226] Ezek. xxvii. 8, 9, 11.

[227] So Joseph. l.s.c. Mr. Kenrick disputes the date on account of
Ezek. xxvi. 2, which he thinks must refer to the /final/ siege and
capture of Jerusalem; but the reference may be to the breaking of
the power of Judæa, either by Neco in B.C. 608 or by
Nebuchadnezzar in B.C. 605.

[228] 2 Kings xxiv. 2; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 6.

[229] Ezek. xxviii. 21-23.

[230] Menander, l.s.c.

[231] Ezek. xxvi. 8-12.

[232] Isaiah xliii. 14; Æschyl. /Pers./ l. 54.

[233] As Kenrick (/Phœnicia/, p. 390).

[234] See especially, ch. xxviii. 2, 12.

[235] Ibid. verses 2-10, 17, 18.

[236] Ezek. xxvii. 26.

[237] Herod. vii. 44, 96, 100, 128.

[238] Ibid. ii. 161; vii. 98; Ezra iii. 7.

[239] Menander, Fr. 2.

[240] Herod. ii. 182.

[241] Ibid. i. 201-214; Ctesias, /Ex. Pers./ § 6-8.

[242] Herod. i. 177; Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ iii. 27.

[243] Herod. i. 201-214; Ctes. /Ex. Pers./ l.s.c.

[244] Ezra i. 1-11.

[245] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 393.

[246] Herod. iii. 19, 34.

[247] Ezra iii. 7.

[248] Ezra iii. 7.

[249] Herod. i. 153.

[250] Ibid. ii. 177.

[251] See Berosus, ap. Joseph. /Ant. Jud./ x. 11, § 1.

[252] Hence the sacred writers speak of the Assyrians and Babylonians
as "God's /northern/ army," "a people from the /north/ country."
(Jer. i. 15; vi. 22; Ezek. xxvi. 7; Joel ii. 20, &c.)

[253] See Herod. iii. 5.

[254] Ibid. ii. 159.

[255] Ibid. ii. 161.

[256] Ibid. ii. 182.

[257] Herod. ii. 150, 154; iii. 11.

[258] Ibid. iii. 19.

[259] Ibid. vii. 98; viii. 67, § 2; Diod. Sic. xvi. 42, § 2; xvii. 47,
§ 1; Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 13, 15, &c.

[260] Herod. iii. 19.

[261] Ezek. xxix. 10.

[262] Herod. iii. 17.

[263] Herod. iii. 19.

[264] Ibid.

[265] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 394.

[266] Diod. Sic. xvi. 41.

[267] Kenrick, p. 391, note 3.

[268] Herod. iii. 91.

[269] Diod. Sic. xvi. 41, § 2.

[270] Herod. v. 52.

[271] See the author's /Herodotus/, iv. 30, note 1.

[272] Herod. vii. 28.

[273] Ibid. iv. 166.

[274] Herod. v. 37-104.

[275] Phœnicia could furnish 300 triremes, Cyprus 150, Ionia at this
time 283 (Herod. vi. 8), Æolis at least 70 (ibid.), Caria the same
number (ib. vii. 93)--total, 873. Against these Darious could only
have mustered 200 from Egypt (ib. vii. 89), 100 from Cilicia (ib.
91), 50 from Lycia (ib. 92), and 30 from Pamphylia (ib. 91)--
total, 380.

[276] Herod. i. 28, 176; Appian, /Bell. Civ./ iv. 80.

[277] Herod. iii. 14-16, 27-29, 37, &c.

[278] Ibid. v. 108.

[279] Ibid.

[280] Ibid. v. 112.

[281] See the author's /Herodotus/, i. 268, 269, 3rd ed.

[282] Herod. vi. 9.

[283] Ibid. ch. 6.

[284] Herod. ch. 8.

[285] Ibid. chs. 9-13.

[286] The Lesbians and most of the Samians (Herod. v. 14).

[287] Ibid. ch. 15.

[288] Ibid. chs. 31-33.

[289] Herod. v. 41.

[290] Ibid. iii. 135-138.

[291] Herod. vi. 43-45.

[292] See the author's /Herodotus/, iii. 494, note 3.

[293] The fleet which accomponied Mardonius lost nearly /three
hundred/ vessels off Mount Athos (Herod. vi. 44), and therefore
can scarcely have fallen much short of 500; that of Datis and
Artaphernes is reckoned at 600 by Herodotus (vi. 95), at a
thousand by Cicero (/Orat. in Verr./ ii. 1, § 18), and Valerius
Maximus (i. 1).

[294] So Herodotus (vi. 95).

[295] Herod. vi. 118.

[296] Herod. vii. 23.

[297] Ibid. vii. 34-36.

[298] Ibid. viii. 117.

[299] Æschyl. /Pers./ l. 343; Herod. vii. 89.

[300] Herod. vii. 89-95; Diod. Sic. xi. 3, § 7.

[301] Herod. vii. 44.

[302] Ibid. vii. 100, 128.

[303] Ibid. viii. 85.

[304] Ibid. viii. 17.

[305] Diod. Sic. xi. 13, § 2: {'Aristeusai Phasi para men tois
'El-lesin 'Athnaious, para de, tois barbarois Sidonious}.

[306] Herod. viii. 84; Æschyl. /Pers./ ll. 415-7.

[307] Herod. viii. 86-90.

[308] Ibid. ch. 90.

[309] Ibid. ch. 90.

[310] Diod. Sic. xi. 19, § 4.

[311] Herod. ix. 96.

[312] Diod. Sic. xi. 60, § 5, 6.

[313] So Diodorus (xi. 62, § 3); but the mention of Cyprus in line 6
renders this somewhat doubtful.

[314] Thucyd. i. 110.

[315] See /Ancient Monarchies/, iii. 501.

[316] See the /Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum/, i. 139-148.

[317] Nos. 115, 116, 117, 119, 120.

[318] Ibid. No. 118.

[319] /Corp. Ins. Sem./ i. 132, 145.

[320] Dionys. Halicarn. /De Orat. Antiq./ "Dinarch." § 10.

[321] /Corp. Ins. Sem./ i. 145, No. 119.

[322] See the /Corpus Inscriptionum Græcarum/, i. 126, No. 87.

[323] Nefaheritis or Nefaa-ert. (See the author's /Story of Egypt/,
pp. 385, 386, and compare /Ancient Monarchies/, iii. 481, 482.)

[324] Isocrates, /Paneg./ and /Evag./; Theopompas, Fr. 111; Diod. Sic.
xiv. 98; Ctesias, /Exc. Pers./ Fr. 29, § 63.

[325] Diod. Sic. xv. 9, § 2. (See Grote's /Hist. of Greece/, x. 30,
note 3.)

[326] Diod. Sic. xv. 9, § 2.

[327] Isocrates, /Paneg./ § 161; /Evag./ §§ 23, 62.

[328] See Diod. Sic. xiv. 98; xv. 2; Ephorus Fr.; 134 Isocrates,
/Evag./ §§ 75, 76.

[329] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 405.

[330] See /Ancient Monarchies/, iii. 504.

[331] /Ancient Monarchies/, iii. 505, 506.

[332] Diod. Sic. xv. 90, § 3.

[333] Ibid. xv. 92, § 5.

[334] Ibid. xvi. 41, § 1.

[335] Diod. Sic. xvi. 42, § 2.

[336] Ibid. xvi. 41, § 5.

[337] Ibid. xvi. 32, § 2.

[338] Ibid. § 5.

[339] Ibid. xvi. 40, § 5, ad fin.

[340] Ibid. xvi. 44, § 6, ad fin.

[341] Diod. Sic. xvi. § 5.

[342] Diodorus is our authority for all these facts (xvi. 45, § 1-6).

[343] See the author's /Story of Egypt/, pp. 396-401.

[344] Diod. Sic. xvi. 42, § 6; 46, § 3.

[345] Scylax, /Periplus/, § 104.

[346] Ibid.

[347] See Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 13, sub fin.; 15, sub fin.; 30, sub
init.

[348] See /Encycl. Brit./ xviii. 809.

[349] Quint. Curt. iv. 4; Justin, xi. 10. Diodorus by mistake makes
Strato II. king of Tyre (xvii. 47, § 1).

[350] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ i. 1, § 2.

[351] See Grote, /History of Greece/, xii. 102.

[352] Ibid. pp. 29-51.

[353] Diod. Sic. xvii. 7.

[354] Four hundred were actually brought to the relief of Miletus a
few weeks later (Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ i. 18, § 5).

[355] Ibid. § 4.

[356] Diod. Sic. xvii. 22; Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ i. 18-20.

[357] Diod. Sic. xvii. 23-26; Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ i. 20-23.

[358] Diod. Sic. xvii. 29, § 2; Arrian., /Exp. Alex./ ii. 1, § 1.

[359] See the remarks of Mr. Grote (/History of Greece/, xii. 142, 143.)

[360] Diod. Sic. xvii. 29, § 4.

[361] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ i. 20, § 1; Diod. Sic. i. 22, § 5.

[362] Arrian, ii. 8-13.

[363] Arrian, ii. 13, 87; Diod. Sic. xvii. 40, § 2.

[364] As Ger-astartus, king of Aradus (Arrian, l.s.c.); Enylus, king
of Byblus (ibid. ii. 20, § 1); and Azemileus, king of Tyre (ibid.
ii. 15, ad fin.)

[365] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 13, ad fin.

[366] Ibid. ii. 15, § 6.

[367] Arrian, l.s.c.

[368] Ibid. ii. 15, § 7; Q. Curt. iv. 2, § 3.

[369] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 16, ad fin.; Q. Curt. iv. 2, § 5;
Justin, xi. 10.

[370] Diod. Sic. xvii. 40, § 2.

[371] See Diod. Sic. xv. 73, § 4; 77, § 4.

[372] In point of fact, he only obtained, towards the fleet which he
collected against Tyre, twenty-three vessels that were not either
Cyprian or Phœnician (Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 20, § 2).

[373] Herod. viii. 97.

[374] Compare Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 15, § 7, with ii. 24, § 5.

[375] Diod. Sic. xvii. 41, § 3.

[376] Ibid. § 4.

[377] Q. Curt. iv. § 20; Diod. Sic. xvii. 41, § 1, 2.

[378] Diod. Sic. xvii. 40, § 5.

[379] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 18, § 3.

[380] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 18, § 3.

[381] Diod. Sic. xvii. 42, § 1; Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 18, § 5.

[382] Arrian, ii. 18, sub fin.

[383] Ibid. ii. 19, § 1.

[384] This seems to be Arrian's meaning, when he says, {ai keraiai
periklastheisaiexekhean es to pur osa es exapsin tes phlogus
pareskeuasmena en} (ii. 19, § 4).

[385] Grote, /History of Greece/, xii. 185, 186.

[386] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 418.

[387] Q. Curt. iv. 3, § 8.

[388] Arrian, l.s.c.

[389] Arrian, ii. 20, § 1.

[390] Ibid. § 2.

[391] Arrian, ii. 20; § 3; Q. Curt. iv. 3, § 11.

[392] {'Epibibasas tois katastromasi ton upaspiston osoi ikanoi
edokoun es to ergon} (Arrian, ii. 20, § 6).

[393] The Tyrians had but eighty vessels against Alexander's 224.

[394] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 20, ad fin.

[395] Ibid. ii. 21, § 8.

[396] Q. Curt. iv. 3, § 7-9.

[397] Diod. Sic. xvii. 42, § 6; Q. Curt. l.s.c.

[398] See Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, pp. 421, 422.

[399] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 21, § 1.

[400] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 21, § 4-7.

[401] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 21, § 8.

[402] Some editions of Arrian gave {Pasikratous tou Thourieos},
"Pasicrates the Thurian," but the right reading is undoubtedly
{tou Kourieos}, "the Curian, or king of Curium." (See the note of
Sintenis ad loc.)

[403] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 22, § 2.

[404] Six triremes and all the quinqueremes (Arrian, ii. 22, § 3).

[405] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 22, § 5.

[406] Diod. Sic. xvii. 42, § 7.

[407] Ibid. xvii. 45, § 4.

[408] Diod. Sic. xvii. 45, § 3.

[409] Ibid. xvii. 43, § 7, 8.

[410] Ibid. xvii. 44, § 4.

[411] Ibid. xvii. 44, § 1-3.

[412] Ibid. § 4.

[413] Ibid. xvii. 45, § 6.

[414] Ibid. xvii. 43, § 3.

[415] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 22, sub fin.

[416] {Kateseise tou teikhous epi mega} (Ibid. ii. 23, § 1).

[417] Diod. Sic. xvii. 46, § 1.

[418] Arrian, ii. 23, § 2.

[419] Ibid. ii. 23, § 5.

[420] Not "/the/ foremost," as Diodorus says (xvii. 46, § 2).

[421] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 23, ad fin.

[422] Ibid. ii. 24, § 1.

[423] Ibid.

[424] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ ii. 24, § 4.

[425] Diod. Sic. xvii. 46, § 4.

[426] So Arrian (l.s.c.) Diodorus reduces the number to thirteen
thousand (xvii. 46, § 4).

[427] Diod. Sic. xvii. 46, § 5; Arrian, ii. 24, § 6.

[428] See Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 428, note 3.

[429] See Diod. Sic. xvii. 46, § 6. The name Abd-elonim, "servant of
the gods," is common. The Greeks and Romans generally render it by
Abdalonymus.

[430] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ iii. 6, § 3.

[431] Ibid. vi. 1, § 6.

[432] Arrian, /Exp. Alex./ vi. 22, § 4.

[433] Ibid. vii. 19, § 3.

[434] Ibid. § 5.

[435] Diod. Sic. xviii. 3, § 1.

[436] Ibid. 43, § 2.

[437] Diod. Sic. xix. 58, § 1.

[438] So Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 433. Compare Diod. Sic. xviii. 37, § 4.

[439] Diod. Sic. xix. 58, § 2-4.

[440] Ibid. 61, § 6.

[441] Plutarch, /Vit. Demetr./ § 32.

[442] Diod. Sic. xxx. 17; Polyb. v. 40.

[443] Polyb. v. 60.

[444] Ibid. v. 62.

[445] Polyb. xvi. 18; Joseph. /Ant. Jud./ xii. 3, § 3.

[446] See Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 436.

[447] Herod. i. 1. Egypt never sent trading ships into the
Mediterranean. All her commerce with Syria, Asia Minor, and Europe
was carried on either in Greek or Phœnician bottoms.

[448] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, l.s.c.

[449] As that of the Red Sea, Arabia, and the East African coast.

[450] 2 Macc. iv. 18.

[451] Ibid. verses 44-50.

[452] Gesenius, /Mon. Phœn./ pls. 32-34.

[453] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, pp. 437, 438.

[454] Livy, xxvii. 30.

[455] 2 Macc. iv. 49.

[456] 1 Macc. iii. 34-36; 2 Macc. viii. 9; Joseph. /Ant. Jud./ xii. 7,
§ 2,

[457] 2 Macc. viii. 11.

[458] 1 Macc. iii. 41.

[459] 2 Macc. viii. 25; Joseph. /Ant. Jud./ xii. 7, § 4.

[460] Strab. xvii. 2, § 22.

[461] Joseph. /Ant. Jud./ xii. 4, § 3.

[462] Ibid. § 4.

[463] By Theodotus in B.C. 219 (Polyb. v. 61, § 5), by Cleopatra,
queen of Syria, about B.C. 85 (Joseph. /Ant. Jud./ xiii. 13, § 2),
by Tigranes in B.C. 83 (ibid. xiii. 16, § 4), &c.

[464] Justin, /Hist. Philipp./ xl. 1; Appian, /Syriaca/, § 48.

[465] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 438.

[466] Or, sometimes, under a proprætor.

[467] Joseph. /Ant. Jud./ xiv. 10, § 2.

[468] Ibid. xv. 4, § 1, ad fin.

[469] Ibid. xiv. 12, §§ 4, 5.

[470] Mommsen, /History of Rome/, iv. 113-115, Engl. Tr.; Merivale,
/Roman Empire/, i. 36.

[471] Thucyd. i. 4.

[472] See the author's /Sixth Oriental Monarchy/, pp. 178-180.

[473] Dio Cass. /Hist. Rom./ xlviii. 25.

[474] Ibid. § 26.

[475] Joseph. /Ant. Jud./ xiv. 13.

[476] Dio. Cass. xlviii. 39-41.

[477] Ibid. liv. 7.

[478] Ramsay, in Smith's /Dict. of Greek and Rom. Geography/, i. 11.

[479] Suidas ad voc. {Paulos Turios}.

[480] Mark vii. 24-30. Compare Matt. xv. 21-28.

[481] Acts xii. 20, 21.

[482] Acts xi. 19.

[483] Ibid. xxi. 3-7.

[484] See Robertson, /History of the Christian Church/, i. 195, 196.

[485] Ibid. p. 201.

[486] Some doubts have been entertained as to whether Porphyry was
really a Tyrian, but his own statement (/Vit. Plotini/, ii. 107),
backed as it is by the testimony of Eunapius and Suidas, should be
regarded as settling the question.

[487] Mason, in Smith's /Dict. of Greek and Rom. Biography/, iii. 502.

[488] See the article on PORPHYRIUS in Smith's /Dict. of Greek and
Rom. Biography/, iii. 498-502.

[489] Strab. xvi. 2, § 24.

[490] See the lines quoted by Kenrick (/Phœnicia/, p. 440, note) from
Cramer's /Anecdota Græca/ (iv. 19, § 6):--

{Oi tes Stoas bullousin 'Akademian, Purronas outoi, pantas o
Stegeirites. 'Alloi de touton Phoinikes te kai Suroi.}

[491] Strabo, l.s.c.

[492] Ibid. Strabo's words are: {Nuni de pases kai tes alles
philosophias euporian polu pleisten labein estin ek touton ton poleon.}

[493] Smith's /Dict. of Greek and Rom. Biography/, ii. 417.

[494] Kenrick, /Phœnicia/, p. 440.

[495] Suidas, s.v. {Paulos Turios}.

[496] Smith's /Dict. of Greek and Rom. Biography/, ii. 1000.

[497] Smith's Gibbon, ii. 317.

[498] Heineccius, /Ant. Rom. Synt./ Proëm, § 45.

[499] Ibid.

[500] See Eckhel, /Doctr. Num. Vet./ iii. 366; Mionnet, /Description
des Médailles/, Supplement.

[501] Note that the "Syro-Phœnician woman" who conversed with our Lord
is spoken of as also {'Ellenis}, one whose language was Greek (Mark vii. 26).

[502] /De situ orbis/, i. 12; "Sidon adhuc opulenta."

[503] Ulpian, /Digest. Leg. de Cens./ tit. 15.

[504] /Exp. totius Mundi/ in Hudson's /Geographi Minores/, iii. 6.

[505] Hieronymus, /Comment. ad Ezek./ xxxvi. 7.

[506] Hieronymus, /Comment. ad Ezek./ xxvii. 2.

[507] Ezek. xxvi. 14.

[508] Euseb. /Vita Constantin. Magni/, iii. 58.





End of The Apparatus Library Etext of History of Phoenicia, by Rawlinson