Infants were burnt alive, and the most acceptable of all sacrifices

was that of an only child. The image of Saturn was of brass, the

outstretched hands were hollowed so as to receive the body of the

child, which slid thence to a fiery receptacle below. Mothers brought

their infants in their arms, and quieted them by caresses till the

moment they were thrown into the flames, since any manifestation of

reluctance would have rendered the sacrifice unacceptable to the god.

Human sacrifices were not made to one god only, or to one answering to

the Saturn of the Greeks and Romans; but since Saturn was reputed to

have devoured his own children it was natural that they should call any

god to whom infants were offered by his name. Wherever human sacrifices

prevailed they assumed that Saturn was worshipped; but, although Chiun

(mentioned by the prophet Amos) was undoubtedly the planet Saturn, it

does not appear that infants were offered to him.

The gods hitherto mentioned belonged to Phœnicia as a whole, but

Melkarth, “king of the city” was the tutelary god of Tyre, and by

Tyrian colonies his worship was spread far and wide throughout the

ancient world. Under the name of Melicertes he appears in Greek

mythology as a Sea-god, and bears the synonym of “the wrestler,” an

epithet of Hercules. The Egyptians worshipped Hercules as one of their

great gods, but Herodotus found no trace to show that his worship had

been brought from Egypt to Tyre.

We should expect to find among a seafaring people the worship of a god

corresponding to the Greek Poseidon, but though several marine deities

are mentioned by Sanchoniathon, very few traces of any such god appear

in the public worship of Phœnicia. This may perhaps be explained by the

circumstance that they brought their religious system with them to the

shores of the Mediterranean. The mythology of Semitic nations appears

to have contained no god to correspond with Neptune. The divinities who

really presided over navigation among the Phœnicians were the Cabiri,

the reputed sons of Vulcan, who were represented in the garb of smiths,

and whose images were placed on the prows of Phœnician vessels.

If idolatry be defined as the worship of false gods the Phœnicians were

idolaters, but they were not image-worshippers in the same sense as the

Egyptians, Assyrians, and Greeks. Their temples seem to have contained

no representation of the deity, or at most, a rude symbol. What we

know of their religion is merely external; to the more interesting

question of what spiritual conceptions they attached to the names and

attributes of their gods and the rites by which they were worshipped,

we have no answer to give. The leading characteristic of the nation

was practical activity, and the evidences of this were what foreigners

saw and recorded. Our ignorance is the less to be regretted because

the Phœnician religion had little influence in historic times on the

beliefs of other nations or on the art and literature of the ancient

world. Its genuine character survived at Carthage, and even after the

fall of that colony it long retained its hold on such portions of

northern Africa as had been subject to Carthaginian dominion.[b]

CULTURE; ART

That which gave the Phœnician culture of the period preceding the

Egyptian supremacy its peculiar stamp, was the abundance of Babylonian

elements, which had, however, been so thoroughly assimilated, that

the civilisation of Phœnicia presented itself to the Egyptians as a

perfected and independent one.

There was an astonishing number of cities and fortified places. Many

branches of industry and a flourishing trade had increased the wealth

of the inhabitants, and developed a considerable degree of luxury in

their manners. At the same time, agriculture and stock-raising were

extensively carried on. We know that the Egyptians imported great

quantities of corn, wine, and oil from the land of Zahi, _i.e._, Syria

and Phœnicia.

Babylonian and Assyrian influences cannot be distinguished in detail,

but it seems probable that many of the borrowings in the field of

religion came directly from Babylonia. The name of Astarte had already

been given to the goddess worshipped in many places of Syria. The

Phœnician priests may have had already the Babylonian robes in which

they are later represented.

The religious art of Mesopotamia furnished the Phœnicians models for

the representation of cherubs and other winged forms. This appears

most plainly in the representation of the god Ilu, who is given not

only a double pair of wings, but often, like some divinities of the

Mesopotamian pantheon, a trailing caftan-like garment.

Moreover, it can readily be seen that the borrowing of the alphabet

must have been preceded by long and numerous borrowings of a more

material nature, and adaptations of arts.

The development of art in Syria was furthered by the great number of

small states in the land. The love of display of all the petty princes

increased the demand for jewels and costly vessels, especially for gold

and silver work. The enormous profits of this trade were also doubtless

an attraction to the Phœnicians.

In the articles of luxury that came to Egypt by way of tribute or of

trade, the art and industry of the Nile Valley found much to learn.

From them was obtained a greater supply of designs suitable for merely

ornamental purposes, and also a hitherto unknown method of application

for some ornaments. Thus, reliefs now and then contain full-faced

figures of gods and men, and a greater preference for winged figures

manifests itself. There are, in fact, but few fields in which the

counter effect of unhindered intercourse with the inhabitants of Syria

cannot be traced.

On the other hand, the peoples of Syria adopted much from the Egyptians

and their civilisation. In Phœnicia, to be sure, this influence is not

so plain as in the coast-land of Palestine, but it is none the less

a certainty for all the succeeding periods. The Phœnician religion

adopted the Egyptian gods Horus, Tehuti, Ptah, Bast, Hapi, and others.

The Osiris myth gained considerable currency among the Phœnicians.

In their attempts to determine the relations of the various gods

the Phœnician priests may have followed Egyptian schemes; for both

Phœnician and Egyptian theology establish eight divinities, or four

pairs of gods, as world-forming powers under the rule of a chief god.

But the most important effect of the contact with Egypt is seen in the

art, and particularly the religious art, of the Phœnicians. Much use is

made of various signs and hieroglyphs, _e.g._, the full moon symbol,

the hieroglyph for “life,” the serpent of Uræus, the hawk of Horus, the

eye of Uzat. Scarabs, too, were quite extensively made.

Decorative patterns as well as sacred symbols were adopted by the

Phœnicians from Egypt. The lotus flower and bud, and the nechef plant

especially, came into vogue as designs for capitals.

Finally, it seems altogether probable that the Phœnicians in their

intercourse both with Egypt and their neighbours in Syria borrowed not

only forms, but methods in all fields of art and industry.

That an art which was bent principally upon assimilation and imitation

was not able to attain any great consistency of development, nor

feeling for unity of style, is not at all surprising. To find a

language of form, in which Asiatic would combine with Egyptian to

produce something new, was beyond its power; its mode of expression

remains a kind of jargon, embellished with a little Greek, but which

never stood higher than pigeon English among the idioms of the present.

Where the Phœnician artist gives free play to the inventions of his

own genius, he only produces creations that show a lack of genuine

feeling for form, in no less degree than the rough and absurd mixture

of totally different styles, of which he is so often guilty.

In their fame as inventors there is so much borrowed glory that it

is questionable whether the founding of a single branch of industry

is really to be ascribed to them. Their commercial capacity must be

reckoned far higher than their creative ability, than all that they

ever produced independently. A tenacious striving for enrichment by

the gains of trade, which, full of a delight in undertaking, of shrewd

determination and calculation, seeks its advantage without yielding to

any difficulty or danger, is united with a mode of thought that bends

circumstances to itself: that knows no consolidated national interests;

that, in spite of the religious fears that pictured with horrors the

fate of the soul of him who died abroad without ritualistic protection

from the demon of the death hour, and in spite of a devoted attachment

to the place of birth, is always ready to leave it as soon as it

appears advantageous.[c]

THE PHŒNICIAN INFLUENCE ON HISTORY

If we sum up all that has been said to specify the place of the

Phœnicians in the history of the world, we see that their position was

more due to their circulation of the cultures of the eastern lands to

western countries than to their own creations.

By their inventions and technical skill, activity, and industry they

enriched and beautified the external life of the ancient people. By

their courageous sea voyages, they extended the knowledge of the

world and opened up new objects for discovery, and fresh fields for

the spirit of enterprise. By their great intercourse and universal

commerce, they introduced the products of distant cultured countries to

the most backward races, and thus incited them to creations of their

own. And if these advantages were of a material nature, and if the

satisfaction of the desire for gain and profit were the aim and object

of this selfish commercial people, they bore the seed of an advanced

culture which elicited imitation which would not otherwise have been

attempted.

The historical books of the Tyrians, mentioned by Josephus, with

the exact account of the period, were not without influence on the

Israelites and Greeks; and the tradition that the Phœnicians introduced

the alphabet-writing to the European people, and were the founders of

many religious forms and cult practices, and taught the sacred arts,

shows that deeper elements of culture were fostered and circulated with

the material benefits, and that trade and intercourse in their hands

were active instruments for spiritual evolution, as their attention was

not exclusively turned to the material, but also directed to spiritual

advantages.

Through their colonies the Phœnicians became the creators of ordered

state forms and legal institutions which put bounds and limitations

to the common conditions of war. Activity was used for the welfare

and salvation of mankind, and the arts of peace found a proper field

for their beneficial development. This, however, is the sum of their

influence. It would be appraising the Phœnicians too highly to regard

them as the forerunners of the Greeks in religious wisdom, art, and

poetry.

In religious doctrine they were more receptive than productive. They

adopted most of the nature-symbolic divinities of the Babylonians,

Egyptians, and other cultured races; and by mixing up different

representations and symbols, they confused the ideas in a formless

whole, and veiled them in mystic darkness. Instead of continuing

through free speculation what is understood, or impressing an

idiosyncratic national stamp on what was foreign, they reduced the

fundamental elements to a complicated convolution of ideas devoid of

clear forms or ethical foundation. As their life was so permeated with

the mercantile spirit, they placed their divinities in direct relation

with appearances of practical experience, and desecrated the deep

doctrines by material significations, by lascivious use, and by cruel

practices.

Given over to the sweet habits of life, they bemoaned in mourning

services the instability and perishableness of all that is earthly,

without seeking any faith in immortality or in the continuance of the

soul beyond the borders of time. There are no traces or memorials of

Phœnician poetry or literature.

Their cult, spoilt by unbridled or unnatural practices, was not of a

character to express itself in holy inspiration and to give rise to

religious hymns.

Their nature-gods, derived from the Tyrian Melkarth, were colourless

symbolic figures, destitute of heroic deeds, or historical myths

fitting for a popular epic. What room, indeed, was there for leisure

and interest in poetry and heroic stories in a restless life of

industry and trade?

But surely the Phœnicians did something great in building and

sculpture? It is true that the temple of Jerusalem was built by

Tyrian workmen, artists, and builders; that the temple buildings

in Tyre, Aradus, Paphos, and Gades, in Carthage and Utica, excited

the admiration of antiquity; that the buildings of King Hiram,

the ruined temples in Malta and Gozo, the gigantic tombs and the

circular “nurhage” in the Balearic Isles and in Sardinia, testify

to architectural skill; but they are far inferior to those of the

Egyptians, or of the cultured races of the Euphrates and Tigris. From

what we gather from some descriptions, their temples were more noted

for size and magnificence than for artistic taste.

Their materials were chiefly wood and metal, and from the description

of the jewels, treasures, and ornaments of all kinds, which

distinguished the fine buildings of the Phœnicians, we see that their

fame was not due to the grand full forms of simple stone architecture,

but to the rich ornamentation and brilliant variegation. The structure

of the ships seems also to have been of the same character as the

buildings. The Phœnician buildings cannot be compared with the

Assyrian, which the recent excavations have brought to light; and much

that was hitherto attributed to the Phœnicians is now found to be

Ninevite art, and also in the West many remains of old Phœnician work

are traced to the Etruscans.

Phœnician sculpture takes a still lower rank. The physical powers which

work externally and internally in the creation and destruction of

nature that they deified could not be represented in beautiful forms

in art, like the ethical powers of the human heart with the Greeks.

Their fetiches were demoniacal distortions, their images of gods were

frightful, and the figures were overladen with symbols and attributes.

The human form, the fundamental type of all organic art, found no free

and natural expression, and the fantastic forms of animals and plants

on their vessels were borrowed from the Assyrians and Babylonians. Pure

form and natural beauty were quite wanting.[i]

“The stage of development,” says Gerhard, “of such artistic remains of

the Phœnicians as are known to us, instead of putting them on a higher

plane show that their fame in antiquity was due to their technical

working of such materials, as iron, gold, ivory, glass, and purple;

and to their usefulness as intermediaries which led to their being

often called upon either to execute or to disseminate the higher art

of interior Asia. They had a considerable influence upon Grecian art

in early times, but at the time of its development, very little. The

inartistic nature and the want of the plastic sense, peculiar to all

Semitic races, was seen in the Phœnicians.”[m]

APPENDIX A. CLASSICAL TRADITIONS

Indirectly America owes its discovery to Phœnicia; for her bold

venturers into new oceans began that spirit of discovery for the

advancement of trade which has given the art or the sport of

discovering a solid basis. The Phœnicians founded the school of

maritime exploration which the Portuguese revived centuries later,

and the Spanish took up at the instigation of the Italian Columbus.

So America owes a debt to the Phœnicians. Indeed, there have not been

wanting those who claimed that the Phœnicians themselves actually found

and colonised America. Of this more will be said in the volumes on

America. Meanwhile there follows a stirring account of a voyage made

by Hanno who, five or six centuries B.C., set forth on a governmental

commission to enlarge the knowledge and the trade of Carthage, the

chief colony of Phœnician origin. Hanno’s own account is given followed

by a comment of Heeren’s.[a]

“THE VOYAGE OF HANNO, BEYOND THE PILLARS OF HERCULES, WHICH HE

DEPOSITED IN THE TEMPLE OF SATURN”

“It was decreed by the Carthaginians, that Hanno should undertake a

voyage beyond the Pillars of Hercules, and 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 passed the Pillars on our voyage, and had 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 Solœis, a promontory of Libya, a place

thickly covered with trees, where we erected a temple to Neptune; 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

beasts, were feeding.

“Having passed the lake about a day’s sail, we founded cities near

the sea, called Cariconticos, and Gytte, and Acra, and Melitta, and

Arambys. Thence we came to the great river Lixus, which flows from

Libya. On its banks the Lixitæ, a shepherd 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 Troglodytæ, 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 toward the south two days. Thence we proceeded towards the

east the course of a day. Here we found in a recess of a certain bay,

a small island, containing a circle 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 lake, which we reached by sailing up a large river

called Chretes. This lake had three islands, larger than Cerne, from

which proceeding a day’s sail we came to the extremity of the lake,

that was overhung by large 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 large and broad, and full of crocodiles and river horses; whence

returning back we came again to Cerne.

“Thence we sailed towards the south twelve days, coasting the shore,

the whole of which is inhabited by Ethiopians, who would not wait our

approach but fled from us. Their language was not intelligible even to

the Lixitæ, who were with us. Towards 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 in all directions, either more or less.

“Having taken in water there, we sailed forwards five days near the

land, until we came to a large bay, which our interpreters 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 day-time except trees; but

in the night we saw many fires burning, and heard the sound of pipes,

cymbals, drums, and confused shouts. We were then afraid, and our

diviners ordered us to abandon the island. Sailing quickly away thence

we passed a country burning with fires and perfumes; and streams of

fire supplied from it fell into the sea. The country was impassable on

account of the heat. We sailed quickly thence, being much terrified;

and passing on for four days, we discovered at night a country full

of fire. 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

large hill, called the Chariot of the Gods. On the third day after our

departure thence, having sailed by those streams of fire, we arrived at

a bay called the Southern Horn; at the bottom of which lay an island

like the former, having a lake, and in this lake another island, full

of savage people, 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 seize any of them; but all fled from us, escaping

over the precipices, and defending themselves with stones. Three women

were, however, taken; but they attacked their conductors with their

teeth and hands, and could not be prevailed upon to accompany us.

Having killed them, we flayed them, and brought their skins with us to

Carthage. We did not sail farther on, our provisions failing us.”[b]

Heeren makes this observation on Hanno’s account of his voyage. “The

opinions respecting the Periplus of Hanno differ very widely from

one another, both as regards its authenticity and the circumstances

attending it. I cannot, however, believe that any critic will, in the

present day, doubt its authenticity in the whole, though they may its

completeness. Its shortness has led many to suppose that it is only the

abridgment of a larger work, and this opinion is favoured by Rennell,

and seems confirmed by the passage in Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ II, 67, where

he says: Hanno sailed from Gades round Africa to Arabia, and has given

a description of the voyage. But another writer has already justly

observed that Pliny had not himself read the Periplus, but depended on

the uncertain testimony of another; and that the passage of Pomponius

Mela, III, 9, clearly shows that Mela had read _our_ Periplus.

Gosselin, _Recherches_, I, 64. The Periplus was not, certainly, the

description of a voyage, in our sense of the phrase, but a public

memorial of the expedition, being an _inscription_ posted up in one of

the principal temples of Carthage.”[f]

HIMILCO’S VOYAGE OF DISCOVERY

About the same time that Hanno was seafaring southward another

Carthaginian, Himilco, was working his way northward from Gades or

(Cadiz). He was less successful in his efforts, and complained that a

dearth of wind and a superfluity of seaweed ruined his progress. The

Roman poet, Rufus Festus Avienus, of the fourth century A.D., made use

of Himilco’s information in his poetical geography, _Ora Maritima_,

from which the following picture of the world is taken.

“Where the ocean presses in, and spreads wide the Mediterranean waters,

lies the Atlantic bay; here stands Gadeira [Gades], of old called

Tartessus [Tarsish]; here the Pillars of Hercules, Abyla, left of Libya

and Calpe. Here rises the head of the promontory, in olden times named

Œstrymnon [Cornwall], and below, the like-named bay and isles; wide

they stretch and are rich in metals, tin, and lead.

“There a numerous race of men dwell, endowed with spirit, and no slight

industry, busied all in the cares of trade alone. They navigate the sea

on their barks, built not of pines and oak, but wondrous made of skins

and leather. Two days’ long is the voyage thence to the Holy Island,

once so called, which lies expanded on the sea, the dwelling of the

Hibernian race: at hand lies the Isle of Albion. Of yore the trading

voyages from Tartessus reached to the Œstrymnides [the Scilly Islands];

but the Carthaginians and their colonies near the Pillars of Hercules

navigated on this sea, which Himilco, by his own account, was upon

during four months; for here no wind wafted the bark, so motionless

stood the indolent wave. Seaweed abounds in this sea, he says, and

retards the vessel in her course, while the monsters of the deep swarm

around. Far off is seen Geryon’s hold; here wide expands the Bay of

Tartessus, and from the river thither is one day’s voyage; here lies

the town of Gadeira, of yore called Tartessus; then, great and rich,

now poor and fallen, where I saw naught great but Hercules’ festival.

“Geryon’s fort and temple overtops the sea; a line of rocks crowns the

bay; near the second rock disembogues the river. Close by arises the

Tartessus’ mount bedecked with wood. Next follows the island Erythea,

ruled by the Carthaginians, for in early days the Carthaginians had

there planted a colony. The arm of the sea, which divides it from the

continent and from the fort, is but five stadia broad. The island is

sacred to Marine Venus; it contains her temple and oracle.

“Beyond the Pillars, on Europe’s coast, Carthage’s people of yore

possessed many towns and places. Their practice was to build

flat-bottomed barks for the convenience of navigating shallows; but

westward, as Himilco tells us, is open sea; no ship has yet ventured on

this sea, where the windy gales do not waft her, and thick fogs rest

on the waters. It is the ocean which far roars around the land--the

unbounded sea. This the Carthaginian Himilco saw himself, and from the

Punic records I have taken what I tell thee.”[l]

POMPONIUS MELA ON THE PHŒNICIANS

Pomponius Mela, a Roman citizen but a Spaniard by birth, was the author

of the earliest Latin treatise on geography extant. His work is dated

about the middle of the first century A.D., and his description of the

Phœnicians shows with what deference they were eyed at that time. The

translation used here is that of Arthur Golding, published in London in

1590.

“Phœnicia is renowned for the Phœnicians a pollitique kinde of men,

and both in feates of warre and peace peerlesse. They first inuented

Letters and Letter matters and other artes also, as to goe to the sea

with Shippes, to fight upon the water, to raigne over nations, to

set up kingdomes, and to fight in order of battell. In it is Tyre,

sometime an Ile, but nowe ioyned to the fyrme Lande, since the time

that Alexander made workes about it to assault it. Further foorth,

stand certaine small Villages, and the Cittie of Sidon, euen yet still

wealthie, and in olde time the greatest of all the Cities oppon the

Seacoast, before it was taken by the Persians.

“Between that and the foreland of Euprosopon (it may be interpreted

fayre prospect), there are the Townes called _Byblos_ and _Botris_,

and beyonde them were three other, ech distaunt a furlong asunder, and

therefore the place was of the number called Tripolis; then follow the

Castle Simyra, and a Cittie not unrenowned, called _Marathos_. From

thence the country being not crooked with the Sea, but lying foorth

right side by side unto it, bendeth his shore into the maine Land, and

receiveth a great Baie. About the which dwell ritch people, the cause

whereof is the situation of the place, for that the Countrie being

fertile, and furnished with many riuers able to beare shippes, serveth

well for the easie erchaung and conueying in of all kinds of wares,

both by Sea and Land. Within that Baye, is first the residue of Syria,

which syrnamed Antioche, and on the shore thereof, stande the Cities

Selucia, and Aradus.”[h]

APPIANUS ALEXANDRINUS ON THE FOUNDING OF CARTHAGE BY DIDO

“The Phœnicians built Carthage in Africa fifty years before the sack

of Troy. It was Founded by Xorus and Carchedon or as the Romans, and

indeed the Carthaginians themselves, will have it, by a Tyrian Lady

called Dido who (her Husband being privily murdered by Pygmaleon,

Tyrant of Tyre, which was revealed to her in a Dream) conveyed aboard

all the Treasure she could, and shipping herself with some Tyrians that

fled from the Tyranny, came to Libya, to that place where now Carthage

stands; and upon the people of that Countrie’s refusal to receive them,

they demanded for their Habitation only so much Land as they could

compass with an Ox-hide. This proposition seemed ridiculous to the

Africans, and they thought it a shame to refuse strangers a thing of so

small consequence, besides they could not imagine how any Habitation

could be built in so small a patch of ground, and therefore that they

might have the pleasure to discover the Phœnician subtlety, they

granted their request.

“Whereupon the Tyrians, taking an Ox-hide, cut it round about, and made

so fine a thong, that they therewith encompassed the place where they

afterwards built the Citadel of Carthage, which from thence was called

‘Byrsa.’ [Byrsa in Greek signifies a Hide.]

“Soon after by little and little extending their limits, and becoming

stronger than their neighbours, as they were more cunning, they

caused ships to be built to traffick on the sea after the manner of

the Phœnicians, by which means they built a city adjoining to their

citadel. Their power thus encreasing they became masters of Libya, and

the circumadjacent sea; and at last making War upon Sicily, Sardinia

and all the Islands of the Sea, and even in Spain itself, they sent

thither Colonies, till at length, from so small a beginning, they

formed an Estate comparable in Power to that of the Greeks, and in

Riches to that of the Persians.[e]”

[Illustration: RUINS OF TOMB IN PAPHLAGONIA

(After Hirschfeld)]

BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS

[The letter [a] is reserved for Editorial Matter.]

CHAPTER I. LAND AND PEOPLE

[b] A. H. L. HEEREN, _Historical Researches_.

[c] R. PIETSCHMANN, _Geschichte der Phoenizier_.

[d] The Holy Bible.

[e] FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, _Ἰουδαϊκη ἀρχαιολογία_.

[f] HERODOTUS, _Ἱστορίαι_.

[g] JUSTIN, _Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV_ (epitome of Trogus

Pompeius).

[g] C. K. J. VON BUNSEN, _Ægyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte_.

[h] MENANDER OF EPHESUS, _Annals of Tyre_ (quoted in Josephus).

CHAPTER II. EARLY HISTORY AND INFLUENCES

[b] R. PIETSCHMANN, _Geschichte der Phoenizier_.

[c] O. MELTZER, _Geschichte der Karthager_.

[d] HERODOTUS, _Ἱστορίαι_.

[e] B. G. NIEBUHR, _Lectures on Ancient History_.

[f] The Holy Bible.

[g] MENANDER, _Annals of Tyre_ (quoted in Josephus).

CHAPTER III. THE PHŒNICIAN TIME OF POWER

[b] F. C. MOVERS, _Die Phoenizier_.

[c] MAX DUNCKER, _Geschichte des Alterthums_.

[d] R. PIETSCHMANN, _Geschichte der Phoenizier_.

[e] JOSEPHUS, _Ἰουδαϊκη ἀρχαιολογία_.

[f] The Holy Bible.

[g] HERODOTUS, _Ἱστορίαι_.

[h] MENANDER, _Annals of Tyre_ (quoted in Josephus).

[i] DIUS, CHÆTUS, THEOPHILUS, EUPOLEMUS, _Fragments_.

CHAPTER IV. PHŒNICIA UNDER THE PERSIANS

[b] JOHN KENRICK, _Phœnicia_.

[c] HERODOTUS, _The History of Herodotus_ (translated from the Greek by

William Beloe).

[d] XENOPHON, _Cyropædia_ (translated from the Greek by J. S. Watson

and Henry Dale).

[e] DIODORUS SICULUS, _The Historical Library_ (translated from the

Greek by G. Booth).

[f] ARRIAN, _History of Alexander’s Expedition_ (translated from the

Greek by Mr. Rooke).

[g] QUINTUS CURTIUS, _The Wars of Alexander_ (translated from the Latin

by John Digby).

[h] ISOCRATES, _Orations_.

CHAPTER V. PHŒNICIA UNDER THE GREEKS, THE ROMANS, AND THE SARACENS

[b] JOHN KENRICK, _Phoenicia_.

[c] DIODORUS SICULUS, _The Historical Library_ (translated from the

Greek by G. Booth).

[d] STRABO, _The Geography of Strabo_ (translated from the Greek by J.

Falconer and H. C. Hamilton).

[e] E. GIBBON, _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_.

[f] WILLIAM OF TYRE, _Historia belli sacri_.

[g] SANCHONIATHON (see Bibliography under Court de Gébelin).

[h] SAINT JEROME (HIERONYMUS), _Commentarii in Iesaiam_.

CHAPTER VI. THE STORY OF CARTHAGE

[b] GEORGE GROTE, _History of Greece_.

[c] JOHN KENRICK, _Phoenicia_.

[d] T. MOMMSEN, _Römische Geschichte_.

[e] MEYER’S _Konversations-Lexikon_.

[f] E. GIBBON, _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_.

[g] THUCYDIDES, _Συγγραφή_.

[h] SALLUSTIUS, _Bellum Jugurthinum_.

[i] ERATOSTHENES, _Γεωγραφικά_.

[j] ISOCRATES, _Orations_.

[k] POLYBIUS, _Καθολικὴ κοινὴ ἱστορία_.

CHAPTER VII. PHŒNICIAN COMMERCE

[b] A. H. L. HEEREN, _Historical Researches_.

[c] F. C. MOVERS, _Die Phoenizier_.

[d] STRABO, _The Geography of Strabo_ (translated from the Greek by J.

Falconer and H. C. Hamilton).

[e] DIODORUS SICULUS, _The Historical Library_ (translated from the

Greek by G. Booth).

[f] STRABO, _Γεωγραφικά_.

[g] HERODOTUS, _The History of Herodotus_ (translated from the Greek by

William Beloe).

[h] PLINIUS SECUNDUS, _Historia Naturalis_.

CHAPTER VIII. PHŒNICIAN CIVILISATION

[b] JOHN KENRICK, _Phoenicia_.

[c] R. PIETSCHMANN, _Geschichte der Phoenizier_.

[d] O. C. C. EMMANUEL DE ROUGÉ, _Mémoire sur l’origine égyptienne de

l’alphabet phénicien_.

[e] W. DEECKE, _Der Ursprung der Kyprischen Sylbenschrift_.

[f] H. WUTTKE, _Geschichte der Schrift und des Schriftthums_.

[g] J. P. PETERS, _Nippur_.

[h] F. HOMMEL, _Geschichte Assyriens und Babyloniens_.

[i] GEORG WEBER, _Weltgeschichte_.

[j] HERODOTUS, _The History of Herodotus_ (translated from the Greek by

William Beloe).

[k] PLINIUS SECUNDUS, _Historia Naturalis_.

[l] PHILO BYBLIUS (see Bibliography).

[m] EDUARD GERHARD, _Auserlesene griechische Vasenbilder_.

APPENDIX A. CLASSICAL TRADITIONS

[b] HANNO, “The Periplus of Hanno.”

[c] JUSTIN, _The History of the World_ (translated from the Latin by G.

Turnbull).

[d] The Holy Bible.

[e] APPIANUS ALEXANDRINUS, _The History of Appian of Alexandria_

(translated from the Greek by J. Dancer).

[f] A. H. L. HEEREN, _Historical Researches_.

[g] _Himilco’s Voyage of Discovery._ Preserved through the _Ora

Maritima_ of Rufus Festus Avienus.

[h] POMPONIUS MELA, _The Rare and Singular Works of Pomponius Mela_

(translated from the Latin by Arthur Golding).

[i] ARISTOTLE, _Politics_.

[j] JAS. RENNELL, _The Geographical System of Herodotus_.

[k] P. F. J. GOSSELIN, _Recherches sur la géographie systématique et

positive des anciens_.

[l] AVIENUS, _Ora Maritima_.

[Illustration: PHŒNICIAN WORKMEN]

A GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PHŒNICIAN HISTORY

BASED ON THE WORKS QUOTED, CITED, OR EDITORIALLY CONSULTED IN THE

PREPARATION OF THE PRESENT HISTORY; WITH CRITICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

=Åkerblad=, J. D., Inscriptions Phœniciæ Oxoniensis nova Interpretatio,

Parisiis, 1802; Notice sur deux inscriptions en caractères puniques,

trouvées à Venise et sur les Varangues, Paris, 1804.--=Appianus=,

Ῥωμαϊκὴ ιστορία, Leipsic, 1785, 3 vols. (Book 7 deals with the

Hannibalic Wars, and contains matter of great value to the student

of Carthaginian history, chiefly because it is based on lost

authorities.)--=Aristotle=, Πολιτικφων, (ed. J. G. Schlossa), Lübeck,

1798.--=Arri=, Giannantonio, Lapide fenicia di Nora in Sardegna

dichiarata (in Memorie della Reale Acad, di Torino, Vol. XXXVIII, pp.

59-106); Lettre à Quatremère sur une inscription latino-phénicienne de

Leptis (in Journ. Asiat., Ser. III, Vol. 2, pp. 142-176).--=Arrianus=,

Ιστορίαι αναβάσεως Αλεξάνδρον, Lemgo, 1792-1811.--=Avienus=, R. F.,

Ora Maritima (a poem describing the shores of the Mediterranean from

Marseilles to Cadiz, only a fragment of which is extant. The mention

of Himilco’s voyage of discovery gives it pertinence in the present

connection. Avienus lived in the 4th century A.D.).

* * * * *

=Babelon=, E., et =Lenormant=, F., Histoire ancienne de l’orient,

Paris, 1881-1888, 6 vols, (see particularly Vol. VI.); Manuel

d’archéologie orientale, Paris, 1888; Carthage et l’archéologie

punique en Tunisie (in Am. Journ. of Archæol., Vol. I, p. 173

_et seq._). (The works of Lenormant all have a high degree of

authority, and are noteworthy for their admirable style.)--=Baier=,

J. J., Dissertatio historica de Phoenicibus eorum studiis et

inventis, Jenæ, 1709.--=Ball=, C. J., The Origin of the Phœnician

Alphabet (in Proceedings of the Soc. of Bibl. Arch., Vol. XV,

pp. 392-408).--=Bargès=, J. J. L., Mémoire sur le sarcophage et

l’inscription funéraire d’Eschmunazar, roi de Sidon, Paris, 1856;

Mémoires sur trente-neuf nouvelles inscriptions puniques, Paris,

1852; Temple de Baal à Marseilles, ou grande inscription phénicienne

découverte dans cette ville dans le courant de l’année 1845, Paris,

1847; Mémoire sur deux inscriptions puniques découvertes dans l’île

du port Cothon à Carthage, Paris, 1849; Nouvelle interprétation

de l’inscription phénicienne découverte par M. Mariette, dans le

serapéum de Memphis (in Revue de l’orient, nouv. sér. III, p. 190);

Observations sur les inscriptions phéniciennes du musée Napoléon III

(in Journ. Asiat., Sér. VI, Vol. 2, 1863, pp. 161-195); Recherches

archéologiques sur les colonies phéniciennes établies sur le littoral

de la Celtoligurie, Paris, 1878. (Though somewhat antiquated, these

works still possess a certain value for the student of palæography.

The interest of the described inscriptions is largely due to the

fact that the Phœnician alphabet is “the mother of all existing

alphabets.”)--=Barthélémy= (l’Abbé), Réflexions sur quelques

monuments Phéniciens et sur les alphabets qui en résultent (in

Mémoires de littérature, tirés des registres de l’acad. royale des

inscr., Vol. XXX, 1764, pp. 405-426).--=Baudissin=, W. W. F. von,

Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte, Leipsic, 1876-1878

(a very important contribution to the subject, based on original

researches).--=Bellermann=, J. J. L., Phœniciæ linguæ vestigiorum

in Melitensi specimen, Berolini, 1809; Versuch einer Erklärung der

punischen Stellen im Pœnulus des Plautus, Berlin, 1808; Bemerkungen

über die phönizischen und punischen Münzen, Berlin, 1812.--=Bérard=,

Victor, Les Phéniciens et les poèmes homériques (in Revue de

l’hist. des religions, Vol. XXXIX, pp. 173-228, 419-460, Paris,

1899).--=Berger=, P., La Phénicie pour faire suite à l’écriture et

les inscriptions sémitiques, Paris, 1881 (Extrait de l’Encyclopédie

des sciences religieuses); Rapport sur les inscriptions puniques

récemment découvertes à Carthage, Paris, 1877 (Extract from Archives

des missions scientifiques et lit., Ser. III, Vol. 4, p. 145); La

Bible et les inscriptions (Leçon d’ouverture), Paris, 1890.--=Bertin=,

G., On the Origin of the Phœnician Alphabet, (in Orientalia Antiqua,

I, 1, 1882).--=Bertow=. Typographie de Tyr.--=Beulé=, Nachgrabungen

in Karthago, Leipsic, 1863.--=Bible, The Holy= (authorised version),

London, 1611.--=Bloch=, A., Phönic. Glossar, Berlin, 1891.--=Bockh=,

Aug., Urkunde über das attische Seewesen, Berlin, 1840.--=Bonnemère=,

L., L’influence orientale en Bretagne, (in Soc. d’anthropol. de Paris,

Bulletins, Sér. IV, Vol. 10, pp. 389-397).--=Bourgade= (l’Abbé) F.,

Inscriptions Phéniciennes, Paris, 1852; Toison d’or de la langue

Phénicienne, Paris, 1856.--=Bovet=, F., Egypt, Palestine, and

Phœnicia--a Visit, London, 1882.--=Bredow=, G. G., Untersuchungen über

einzelne Gegenstände der alten Geschichte, Altona, 1800.--=Brown=,

R., Researches into the Origin of the Primitive Constellations of the

Greeks, Phœnicians, and Babylonians, Oxford, 1900, 2 vols.--=Brugsch=,

H., Geographische Inschriften altägyptischer Denkmäler, Leipsic,

1857-1860, 3 vols.--=Budd=, Th., From the Deluge to the Christian Era,

Norwich, 1890.

* * * * *

=Cara=, Cav. Gaetano, Sulla genuità degli idoli sardo-fenicii

esistenti nel museo archæol. della regia università di Cagliari,

Cagliari, 1875.--=Carnena=, A. A., Report on the Phœnician and

Roman Antiquities in the Group of the Islands of Malta, Malta,

1882.--=Cesnola=, General Louis Palma di: Cyprus, Its Ancient Cities,

Tombs, and Temples; A Narrative of Researches and Excavations, London,

1877; Salaminia, Cyprus, etc., London, 1882.--=Chabas=, F., Études

sur l’antiquité historique d’après les sources égyptiennes, Paris,

1873, 2nd ed.--=Church=, A. J., Carthage, the Empire of Africa,

London, 1886.--=Clarke=, J. C. C., The Origin and Varieties of the

Semitic Alphabet, Chicago, 1887.--=Clercq=, de: Notice sur une stèle

Phénico-Hittite (in Acad. des inscr., Comptes rendus, 1901).--=Colonna

Ceccaldi=, G., Monuments antiques de Cypre, Paris, 1882.--=Court de

Gobelin=, Allégories orientales ou le fragment de Sanchoniathon, Paris,

1773. (The alleged Phœnician History of Sanchoniathon has come in

for a large share of attention from students both of history and of

literature. Fragments of what purported to be a translation of this

work into Greek by Philo Byblius, who lived in the first century A.D.,

are preserved by Eusebius. It is in dispute whether such an author

as Sanchoniathon really lived or whether the alleged translation was

a forgery. Mention of the work will be found in other references of

the present bibliography.)--=Crespin=, V., Catalogo illustrato della

raccolta di antichita sarde del Signor Raimondo Chessa, Cagliari,

1868.--=Cumberland=, B. R., Sanchoniathon’s Phœnician History, with

Eratosthenes’ continuation, London, 1720.--=Curtius=, Quintus, History

of Alexander the Great, Venice, 1471.

* * * * *

=Davis=, N., Inscriptions in the Phœnician character, London, 1863;

Carthage and Her Remains, London, 1861; Ruined Cities within Numidian

and Carthaginian Territories, London, 1862.--=Deecke=, W., Der

Ursprung der kyprischen Silbenschrift, Strassburg, 1877.--=Delattre=,

R. P., Carthage et la Tunisie au point de vue archéologique, Tunis,

1883.--=Dérenbourg=, J. and H., Les inscriptions phéniciennes du temple

de Seti à Abydos, publiées et traduites d’après une copie inédite

de M. Sayce (in Revue d’assyriol. I, 3, pp. 81-101).--=Desjardins=,

E., Géog., histr., et administr. de la Gaule romaine, Paris, 1878

(Punic Inscr.).--=Dietrich=, F. E. C., Zwei sidonische Inschriften:

eine griechische aus christlicher Zeit und eine altphönikische

Königsinschrift, Marburg, 1855.--=Diodorus Siculus=, βιβλιοθήκε

ἰστορική, Amsterdam, 1746.--=Donop=, W. G. L. von: Das Magasanische

Europa, Meiningen, 1819-1821, 3 vols.--=Doughty=, C. M., Travels in

Arabia Deserta, Cambridge, 1888, 2 vols.--=Drummond=, Sir William, An

Essay on a Punic Inscription found in the Island of Malta, London,

1810.--=Duncker=, M., Geschichte des Alterthums, Leipsic, 5th ed.,

1878-1883, 7 vols.--=Dureau dela Malle=, A. J. C. A., Recherches sur

la topographie de Carthage, avec des notes par M. Dusgate, Paris,

1835.--=Duvivier=, F. F., Les Inscriptions Phéniciennes, Puniques,

Numidiques, expliquées par une méthode incontestable, Paris, 1846, and

ed. g. Nauck, Leipsic, 1871.

* * * * *

=Euripides=, φοινισσαι, Florence, 1496.--=Eusebius=, Ευσεβιου περι

της Θεοφανειας (edited by J. Migne), Paris, 1857.--=Euting=. J.,

Inschriftliche Mitteilungen (in Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morgenländ.

Ges., Vol. XXIX, 1875); Sammlung der karthagischen Inschriften,

herausg. mit Unterstützung der K. Academie d. Wissensch. zu Berlin,

Strassburg, 1883; Phoenikische Inschriften aus Idalion, Strassburg,

1875; Nabatäische Inschriften aus Arabien, Berlin, 1885; Sinaitische

Inschriften (in Verhdlg. d. Gesellschaft für Erdkunde), Berlin,

1886.--=Ewald=, G. H. A., Über das Phönikische der Inschriften und im

Plautus (in Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Vol. IV, pp.

400-418); Erklärung der grossen phönikischen Inschrift von Sidon und

einer ägyptisch-aramäischen, mit den zuverlässigen Abbildern beider

(in Abhdlg. der Ges. d. Wiss. zu Göttingen, Vol. VII), Göttingen,

1856; Über die phönikischen Ansichten von der Weltschöpfung und den

geschichtlichen Wert Sanchuniathons, Göttingen, 1857. (The author is

known everywhere as one of the greatest interpreters of the traditions

of the Hebrews; his opinions concerning this allied neighbouring people

have, therefore, peculiar interest.)

* * * * *

=Fabricy=, G., De literaturæ Phœniciæ fontibus, Romæ, 1803.--=Falbe=,

C. T., Recherches sur l’emplacement de Carthage suivies de

renseignements sur plusieurs inscriptions puniques inédites, Paris,

1833.--=Fischer=, C., De Hannonis Carthaginiensis periplo, Leipsic,

1893.--=Fontane=, M., Histoire Universelle, Paris, 1883.--=Frankel=,

Phöniz. Altertümer (in Monatschrift für Gesch. und Wissensch. d.

Judenthums, Vol. V, 1856, p. 447 _et seq._).

* * * * *

=Gesenius=, F. H. W., Palæogr. Studien über phöniz. und punische

Schrift, Leipsic, 1835; De inscriptione Phœnicio-Græca in Cyrenaica

nuper reperta ad Carpocratianorum hæresin pertinente commentatio,

Halæ, 1825; Scripturæ linguæque Phœniciæ monumenta quotquot supersunt

edita et inedita, Leipsic, 1837. (Like all the works of this author,

of great value for the student of Semitic philology. The last-named

work comprises the first important collection of Phœnician inscriptions

ever published.)--=Gilbert=, O., Rom und Karthago, Leipsic,

1876.--=Gibbon=, E., The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (ed. by

W. Smith), London, 1872, 8 vols.--=Gosselin=, R. F. J., Recherches

sur la géographie systématique, Paris, 1790-1813, 4 vols.--=Graux=,

C., Les fortifications de Carthage, Paris, 1878.--=Grote=, G.,

History of Greece, London, 1871, 10 vols.--=Grotefend=, G. F., Die

Sanchuniathonische Streitfrage nach ungedruckten Briefen gewürdigt,

Leipsic, 1836. (The position of Grotefend as an originator in the

field of oriental philology gives peculiar interest to his views on

the much-mooted question of the authenticity of the alleged writings

of Sanchoniathon. Grotefend, it will be recalled, first gained a

clew to the phonetic values of certain characters of the old Persian

cuneiform writing, thus taking the first step toward the interpretation

of the Assyrian and Babylonian records.)--=Guerin=, H. V., Inscription

bilingue de Thugga (in Voyage archéol. dans la régence de Tunis, Paris,

1862).--=Gutschmid=, A. von, Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Orients,

Leipsic, 1858; Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte des alten Orients, Leipsic,

1876; Kleine Schriften, edited by Rühl, Leipsic, 1889-1894, 5 vols.

(The second volume of the last-named work contains the original version

of the monumental article on Phœnicia contributed by the author to the

ninth edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_.)

* * * * *

=Halévy=, J., Mélanges d’épigraphie et d’archéologie sémitiques,

Paris, 1874; Mélanges de critique et d’histoire relatifs aux

peuples sémitiques, Paris, 1883. (The opinion of one of the most

original thinkers and greatest authorities among students of Semitic

philology.)--=Hamaker=, H. A., Lettre à M. Raoul-Rochette sur une

inscription en charactères phéniciens et grecs, récemment découverte

à Cyrène, Leyden, 1825.--=Hamdy-Bey= et Th. =Reinach=, Une nécropole

royale à Sidon, Paris, 1892.--=Hanno=, Ἀρριὰνοῦ περίπλους, κ. τ. λ.,

Ἅννωνος περίπλους Λιβίης κ. τ. λ., Basle, 1533.

(The remarkable document here cited tells us all that is known

to posterity of the life of Hanno the explorer who lived

probably in the fifth century, B.C. The document itself was

found in the ruins of Carthage. As to whether it was written

by Hanno himself we have no evidence, unless with Professor

Rawlinson we feel that so direct and clean-cut an account must

come from the hand of the man of action whose deed it records.

Be that as it may, it is a most important historical document,

as evidencing an early expression of that desire to reach out

beyond the limits of the then known world, which almost two

thousand years later was to culminate in the discoveries of

Columbus.)

=Heeren=, A. H. L., Historical Researches, Oxford, 1834-1846, 5 vols.

(The author is particularly happy in his treatment of Phœnician

and Carthaginian civilisation.)--=Hegel=, G. W. F., Lectures on

the Philosophy of History, London, 1857.--=Hengstenberg=, E. W.,

Commentatio de rebus Tyriorum, Berlini, 1832.--=Henzen=, G., Iscrizione

Greco-fenicia d’Atene (in Annali dell’ instituto di corresp. arch.

XXXIII, 1859, p. 321 _et seq._).--=Herder=, G., Ælteste Urkunde des

Menschengeschlechts (in his Werke zur Theol.).--=Hérisson=, Comte d’,

Relation d’une mission archéol. en Tunisie, Paris, 1881.--=Herodianus=,

Ἡρωδιανοῦ τῆς μετὰ Μάρκον βασιλείας ἱστοριῶν βιβλία ὀκτώ, Leipsic,

1789-1805, 5 vols.--=Herodotus=, Historiæ, Strasburg, 1816, 5

vols.--=Hittell=, J. T., History of the Mental Growth of Mankind in

Ancient Times, New York, 1893.--=Hitzig=, F., Zur ältesten Volks-und

Mythengeschichte, Leipsic, 1845; Epigraphische Miscellen. (in Zeitschr.

d. Deutschen Morganländ. Ges. Vol. XII, 1858, p. 695).--=Hogg=, J.,

On Some Inscriptions from Cyprus, copied by Commander Leycester,

R. N., London, 1862. (Reprint from Transactions of Royal Society

of Literature.)--=Homer=, Ὀδυσσεία, Florence, 1488.--=Hommel=, F.,

Geschichte Assyriens und Babyloniens, Berlin, 1885. (Contains a

tolerably full exposition of the author’s reasons for upholding

the theory of the Babylonian--_versus_ the Egyptian--origin of the

Phœnician alphabet, a subject regarding which authorities are not

agreed.)

* * * * *

=Jeremias=, J., Tyrus bis zur Zeit, Nebukadnezars, Leipsic,

1891.--=Josephus=, κατὰ Ἀπίωνος, Basle, 1544.--=Judas=, A. C., Étude

démonstrative de la langue Phénicienne et de la langue Libyque, Paris,

1847; Essai sur la langue Phénicienne avec deux inscriptions puniques

inédites, Paris, 1842; Nouvelles études sur une série d’inscriptions

numidico-puniques, Paris, 1857.--=Justinus=, _Historiarum Philippicarum

Libri XLIV_, Venice, 1470. (The account of the early history of the

Phœnicians contained in the work of Trogus Pompeius--which Justin

condensed--is believed to have been based on the lost “Book of Kings”

of Timagenes, and to have been quite extensive. Justin’s remnant is

very meagre, but is rendered relatively valuable by the paucity of

other sources.)

* * * * *

=Kenrick=, J., Phœnicia, London, 1855. (A work which attempts to do for

the Phœnicians what Wilkinson did for the Egyptians, and with a large

measure of success. Still very valuable.)--=Kidder=, D. P., Tyre: Its

Rise, Glory, and Desolation, with Notices of the Phœnicians Generally,

New York, 1852.--=Kiepert=, H., Die geogr. Stellung der nördl. Länder

in der phöniz.-hebr. Erdkunde (in Berl. Acad. d. Wiss. 1859, p. 191 _et

seq._).--=Kopp=, N. F., Palæographia critica, Mannheim, 1829 (see pp.

90-240, Inscr. Semiticæ); Bilder und Schriften der Vorzeit, Mannheim,

1819-1821, 2 vols.--=Kruse=, F., Ulrich Jasper Seetzen’s Reisen durch

Syrien, Palästina, Phönizien, die Transjordanländer, Arabia, Petræa,

und Unter-Ægypten, Berlin, 1854, 2 vols.

* * * * *

=Lajard=, F., Introduction à l’étude du culte public et des mystères

de Mithra en orient et en occident, Paris, 1847.--=Lanci=, M.,

Osservazioni sul bassorelievo fenico-egizio che si conserva in

Carpentrasso, Rom, 1825; La sacra scrittura illustrata con monumenti

fenico-assirii ed egiziani, Rom, 1827; Paralipomeni alla illustrazione

della sagra scrittura per monumenti assirii ed egiziani, Paris, 1845;

Ragionamento di M. Lanci intorno a nuova stela fenicia discoperta in

Malta, Rom, 1855.--=Landau=, W. von: Beiträge zur Altertumskunde des

Orients. Part I: Belagerung von Tyros. Part II: Die phöniz. Inschr.,

Leipsic, 1899.--=Lang=, R. H., Cyprus: Its History, its Present

Resources and Future Prospects, London, 1878.--=Lasalle=, Ch., Origin

of Western Nations and Languages showing the Construction and Aim

of Punic, etc., London, 1883.--=Layard=, A. H., Discoveries in the

Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, London, 1853.--=Laval=, L. de, Voyage

dans la péninsule arabique du Sinai et l’Egypte moyenne, Paris,

1855-1859.--=Ledrain=, M., Cours d’épigraphie sémitique et d’archéol.

assyrienne, Paris, 1883; Notice sommaire des monuments phéniciens

du musée du Louvre, Paris, 1888.--=Leemans=, C., Gedenksteenen

met Phönicische, Karthagische, Numidische en Liby-Phönicische

Opschriften, Leyden, 1842.--=Lenormant=, F., Le légende de Cadmus et

les établissements phéniciens en Grèce, Paris, 1867.--=Lenthéric=,

Ch., La Grèce et l’Orient en Provence, Paris, 1878.--=Lessert=, Pallu

de: Les fastes de la Numidie, Constantine, 1888.--=Levy=, M. A.,

Phöniz. Studien, Breslau, 1856-1870, 4 parts; Phöniz. Wörterbuch,

Breslau, 1864; Siegel und Gemmen mit aram., phöniz., althebr., himjar.,

nabatæischen und altsyrischen Inschr., Breslau, 1869.--=Lichtenstein=,

A. A. H., Tentamen palæographiæ Assyrio-Persicæ, Helmstädt,

1803.--=Lidzbarski=, M., Handbuch der semitischen Epigraphik, Weimar,

1898, 2 vols.; Ephemeris, Giessen, 1900.--=Livy=, Titus, Historiarum Ab

Urbe Condita libri, London, 1600.--=Longpérier=, A. de: Inscriptions

phéniciennes de Carthage (in Journ. Asiat. Ser. VI, Vol. XIII, p.

343).--=Lortet=, L., La Syrie d’aujourd’hui, Paris, 1884.--=Luynes=,

Duc de, Mémoire sur le sarcophage et l’inscription funéraire

d’Esmunazar, roi de Sidon, Paris, 1856.

* * * * *

=Malte-Brun=, C., Geschichte der Erdkunde von den ältesten bis auf

die neuesten Zeiten, Leipsic, 1816, 2 vols.--=Maltzan=, H. Freiherr

von, Reise auf der Insel Sardinien. Nebst einem Anhang über die

phöniz. Inschr. Sardiniens, Leipsic, 1869.--=Maspero=, G., Histoire

ancienne de l’orient, Paris, 1886.--=Meier=, E., Erklärung phöniz.

Sprachdenkmäler, die man auf Cypern, Malta und Sicilien gefunden,

Tübingen, 1860.--=Mela=, Pomponius, De situ orbis libri III (in

Dionysius Alex. et Pomp. Mela sit. orb. descr.), 1577, and the Rare

and Singular Works, London, 1590.--=Meltzer=, O., Geschichte der

Karthager, Berlin, 1879. (An admirably scientific study of the early

history of Carthage, but only the first volume, bringing the story

to 306, B.C., has appeared.)--=Meyer=, Ed., Geschichte des Altertums,

Stuttgart, 1884-1902, 5 vols.; Meyers Konversations-Lexikon, Leipzig

und Wien, 1894-1897, 17 vols.--=Michaeler=, K., Historisch-kritische

Abhandlung von den Mysterien, Wien, 1796.--=Mommsen=, Theodor,

Römische Geschichte, Berlin, 1853-1856--=Montesquieu=, Baron de,

Esprit des lois, Paris, 1740.--=Montfaucon=, B. de, Palæografia Græca,

Paris, 1708; L’antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures, Paris,

1719.--=Movers=, F. C., Die Phönizier. Vol. I, Bonn, 1841; Vol. II

in three parts, Berlin, 1849-1856; Phönizien (in Allg. Encyclop. von

Ersch und Gruber, Ser. III, Vol. XXIV, pp. 319-443); Phönizische Texte

erklärt, Breslau, 1845-1847, 2 vols.; Die punischen Texte im Poenulus

des Plautus kritisch gewürdigt und erklärt, Breslau, 1845.

_Franz Karl Movers_ was born at Koesfeld, Prussia, July 17th,

1806; died at Breslau September 28th, 1856. Professor Movers

was essentially a man of one idea and one book; but the idea

was a broad one, and the book an epoch-making one. Movers

early in life seems to have selected the history of Phœnicia

as the subject to which he would direct his great energy and

scholarly attention. It was an almost virgin field. Beyond the

vague traditions of the Greeks, comparatively little was known

of that race which had played so great a part in spreading

oriental culture throughout the western world. The subject was

a peculiarly difficult one, because, unlike the Egyptians and

the Babylonians, the Phœnicians had left very few monuments

to tell posterity the story of their greatness. But Professor

Movers followed up with the utmost assiduity such traces as

were to be found, and while he did not live to complete his

work, he gave the world a partial history of the Phœnicians

which no subsequent investigator of their history can ever

neglect. In the main his results have stood the tests of time,

and even now Movers must be considered the foremost authority

on Phœnician history.

=Müller=, F. H., Commentatio de rebus Semiticis, Berolini,

1831.--=Müller=, W. M., Ein Phönik. König (in Mitteil. d. Vorderasiat,

Ges. 1896), Berlin, 1896.--=Munk=, S., L’inscription phénicienne

de Marseilles, trad. et commentée, Paris, 1848.--=Münter=, F., Die

Religion der Karthager, Copenhagen, 1816; Der Tempel der himmlischen

Göttin zu Paphos, Copenhagen, 1824; Om en nyling blandt ruinerne of

Karthago opdaget Punisk gravskrift, Copenhagen, 1824. (Works now having

scarcely more than an antiquarian interest.)

* * * * *

=Oberhummer=, E., Phönizier in Arkadien, München,

1882.--=Ohnefalsch-Richter=, Max, Kypros, die Bibel und Homer. Beiträge

zur Cultur-, Kunst-, und Religionsgeschichte des Orients im Altertume,

Berlin, 1893, 2 vols.--=Olshausen=, J., Phöniz. Ortsnamen ausserhalb

des semitischen Sprachgebietes (in Neues Rheinisches Museum, 1853, p.

321 _et seq._).

* * * * *

=Papier=, A., et =Mélix=, Sur dix-huit inscriptions nouvelles

communiquées à l’académie d’Hippone (in Bulletin de l’Acad. d’Hippone,

1886, no. 21, pp. 81-112).--=Pausanias=, Ἑλλάδος περιήγησις.--=Perrot=,

G., and =Chipiez=, C., History of Art in Phœnicia, London, 1885, Vol.

III of the Series.--=Peters=, J. P., The Babylonian Origin of the

Phœnician Alphabet (in Proceedings of the Soc. of Bibl. Archæol., Vol.

VI, p. 73, _et seq._); Notes on Recent Theories of the Origin of the

Alphabet (in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. XXII,

p. 177, New Haven, 1901); Nippur, or Explorations and Adventures,

etc., New York and London, 1897, 2 vols.--=Philo Byblius=, Phœnician

History in Muller’s Fragmenta Hist. Græc., Vol. III, Paris, 1841-1851.

(This is the alleged translation of Sanchoniathon, already referred

to. It is regarded as indisputable that the author drew upon native

sources, and did not invent the legends he narrates, whether or not

such an author as Sanchoniathon existed.)--=Philostratus=, Zürich,

1844.--=Pietschmann=, R., Geschichte der Phönizier, Berlin, 1889.

_Professor Pietschmann’s_ book, written for the Oncken Series,

is the most recent and the most authoritative work on the

subject. It by no means supplants the great works of Movers and

Kenrick, but it embodies the results of investigations that

were not made when these works were written, and so condenses

into relatively brief space practically all that is at present

known regarding the Phœnicians.

=Pliny, the Younger=, Historiarum Mundi, London, 1826; History of the

World, translated by P. Holland, London, 1601.--=Polybius=, Καθολικὴ

κοινὴ ἱστορία. (Polybius, the personal friend of Scipio, was present

at the destruction of Carthage in 146, B.C. He is the incomparable

authority for the history of the Punic wars, but of his forty books,

only the first five are intact. Of these there are several English

translations.)--=Prutz=, H., Aus Phönizien: geographische Skizzen und

historische Studien, Leipsic, 1876.

* * * * *

=Queipo=, Don V. Vasquez, Essai sur les systèmes métriques et

monétaires des anciens peuples depuis les premiers temps historiques

jusqu’à la fin du Khalifat d’Orient, Paris, 1859.

* * * * *

=Rawlinson=, G., A Manual of Ancient History, Oxford, 1869;

History of Phœnicia, London, 1889.--=Rawlinson=, H. C., Bilingual

Readings--Cuneiform and Phœnician. Notes on some Tablets in the Brit.

Mus. containing Bilingual Legends (Assyria and Phœnicia), (in Journal

of the Royal Asiat. Soc., new Ser. I, pp. 187-247).--=Renan=, J. E.,

Mission de Phénicie, Paris, 1865-1874, 9 pts.; Catalogue des objets

provenant de la mission de Phénicie, Paris, 1862; Histoire générale et

système comparé des langues sémitiques, Paris, 1855.--=Rougé=, Vicomte

Em. de: Mémoire sur l’origine égyptienne de l’alphabet phénicien,

Paris, 1874. (The original memoir was communicated to the Academy some

twenty years earlier, but was accidentally destroyed and hence was

never published. The present paper gave currency to the views of the

author, according to which the Phœnician alphabet is derived from the

hieratic form of the Egyptian writing.)

* * * * *

=Saalschütz=, J. L., Zur Geschichte der Buchstabenschrift, in

besonderer Beziehung auf Hebräer, Phönizier, Griechen und Ægypter,

Königsberg, 1838.--=Saint-Martin=, Vivien de, Le Nord d’Afrique

dans l’antiquité, Paris, 1863.--=Saulcy=, F. de, Mémoire sur une

inscription phénicienne déterrée à Marseilles, Paris, 1847.--=Sayce=,

A. H., Ancient Empires of the East, London, 1884; New Phœnician

and Israelitic Inscriptions (in Babylonian and Oriental Record,

Vol. I, p. 193, London, 1886-1887).--=Scholz=, P., Götzendienst und

Zauberwesen, Regensburg, 1877.--=Schröder=, A., Conspectus chorog.

insigniorum locorum et geographia veterum populorum delineatus,

Sundiae, 1831.--=Schröder=, P., Die phöniz. Sprache, Halle, 1869; Über

einige Fragmente phönikischer Inschriften aus Cypern (in Monatsber.

d. Berl. Acad. d. Wiss. 1872, p. 330 _et seq._, Berlin, 1872);

Phönizische Miscellen. (in Zeitschrift d. Deutschen Morgenländ.

Ges., Vol. XXXIV, p. 675, Halle, 1880).--=Seere=, P., Les marines de

guerre de l’antiquité et du moyen age, Paris, 1886.--=Smith=, R.,

Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, Cambridge, 1885.--=Smith=,

R. B., Carthage and the Carthaginians, London, 1878.--=Socin=, A.

and =Gutschmid=, A. von, Phœnicia (in Encycl. Brit., Vol. XVIII,

Ninth ed.).--=Spiro=, F., Les inscriptions et les stèles votives de

Carthage, Lausanne, 1895.--=Stade=, B., Erneute Prüfung des zwischen

dem Phönizischen und Hebräischen bestehenden Verwandtschaftsgrades ein

Beitrag zur morgenländ. Sprachkunde (in Morgenländ. Forschg. 1875, pp.

167-232, Leipsic, 1875).--=Stadthagen=, D., De quibusdam marmoribus

Phœnicis præmisso specimine de Scripturæ alphabeticæ origine, Berlin,

1846.--=Strabo=, Geographica, Venice, 1516.

* * * * *

=Tatianus=, Oratio ad Græcos, edited by Worth, Oxford, 1700.--=Temple=,

Sir G., Phœnician Tombstone found in Maghrawah in Tunis (in

Transactions of the Roy. Asiat. Soc., Vol. III, p. 548).--=Tiele=, C.

P., La Religion des Phéniciens (in Revue de l’histoire des religions,

Vol. III, Paris, 1881).--=Tissot=, Géographie comparée de la province

romaine d’Afrique, Paris, 1884-1888, 2 vols.--=Turner=, W. W., Remarks

on the Phœnician Inscriptions of Sidon (in Journal of Am. Oriental

Soc., 1862, p. 48 _et seq._, New Haven, 1862); The Sidon Inscriptions,

with a Translation and Notes (in Journal of Am. Oriental Soc., 1856, p.

243 _et seq._, New Haven, 1856).

* * * * *

=Vassallo=, C., Dei monumenti antichi nel gruppo di Malta. Periodo

Fenicio ed Egizio, Valetta, 1851.--=Vaux=, W. S. W., Inscriptions

in the Phœnician Character, now deposited in the British Museum,

discovered on the Site of Carthage, London, 1863.--=Vierthaler=,

Philosoph. Gesch. der Menschen und Völker, Salzburg, 1787-1794, 4

vols.--=Vogüé=, M. de, Six inscriptions phéniciennes d’Idalion, Paris,

1875; Mélanges d’archéologie orientale, Paris, 1868.

* * * * *

=Wachsmuth=, K., Stadt Athen im Alterthum, Leipsic, 1874-1890,

2 vols.--=Weber=, G., Allgemeine Weltgeschichte, Leipsic,

1857-1880, 15 vols.--=Weinrich=, De Phœnicum literatura, Meiningæ,

1714.--=Wellhausen=, J., Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, Berlin,

1884.--=Whitney=, W. D., On de Rougé’s Derivation of the Phœnician

Alphabet from the Egyptian Characters (in Journ. of Am. Oriental

Soc., Vol. X, p. 131).--=Williams=, H. S., The History of the Art of

Writing, New York and London, 1902.--=Winckler=, H., Altorientalische

Forschungen, Leipsic, 1893.--=Wuttke=, H., Geschichte der Schrift und

des Schriftthums, Leipsic, 1872.

* * * * *

=Xenophon=, Κύρου Ἀναβάσις, Oxford, 1735; Κυροπαιδεία, Florence, 1516.

PART VI

THE HISTORY OF WESTERN ASIA

BASED CHIEFLY UPON THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES

ERNEST BABELON, MAX DUNCKER, PAUL KAROLIDES, EDUARD MEYER,

PERROT AND CHIPIEZ, GEORGE RADET, A. H. SAYCE,

A. SOCIN, CHARLES W. SUPER

WITH ADDITIONAL CITATIONS FROM

THE SO-CALLED POEM OF PENTAUR, H. C. BRUGSCH, STEPHANUS

BYZANTINUS, J. A. CRAMER, DEMETRIUS OF SCEPSIS,

DIODORUS, GEORGE GROTE, HERODOTUS, FRITZ

HOMMEL, JUSTIN, POMPONIUS MELA, NICOLAS

OF DAMASCUS, H. SCHLIEMANN, PLINIUS

SECUNDUS, STRABO, THUCYDIDES,

XANTHUS, XENOPHON

TOGETHER WITH AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY ON

THE POSITION OF ASIA MINOR IN HISTORY

BY

WILLIAM J. HAMILTON

COPYRIGHT, 1904,

BY HENRY SMITH WILLIAMS.

_All rights reserved._

PART VI.--WESTERN ASIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

THE POSITION OF ASIA MINOR IN HISTORY 373

HISTORY IN OUTLINE OF THE MINOR KINGDOMS OF WESTERN ASIA 380

CHAPTER I. THE HITTITES 391

CHAPTER II. SCYTHIANS AND CIMMERIANS 400

CHAPTER III. SOME PEOPLES OF SYRIA, ASIA MINOR, AND ARMENIA 413

CHAPTER IV. THE LYDIANS 421

APPENDIX A. CLASSICAL TRADITIONS 438

BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS 464

A GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE HISTORY OF THE MINOR NATIONS OF

WESTERN ASIA 465

THE POSITION OF ASIA MINOR IN HISTORY

BY WILLIAM J. HAMILTON

From his work _Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia_

No country in the world presents, perhaps, more interesting

associations to the geographer, the historian, and the antiquary than

Asia Minor. It is no exaggeration to say that there is scarcely a

spot of ground, however small, throughout this extensive peninsula,

which does not contain some relic of antiquity, or is not more or less

connected with that history, which, through an uninterrupted period of

more than thirty centuries, records the most spirit-stirring events in

the destinies of the human race, and during which time this country

attracted the attention of the world as the battle-field of powerful

nations.

Other countries and other people have flourished for a time, and may

have left behind them a stronger feeling of interest in the thought and

speculations of mankind. But this remarkable difference exists between

them, that, while they have attracted paramount attention for a century

or more, having risen to eminence only to fall into a greater depth of

barbarism, Asia Minor has continued to be a main point of interest and

attraction from the very beginning of the historic period.

It may indeed be true, when we turn over the first pages of the annals

of the world, that Asia Minor was only of secondary importance when

the dynasties of Pharaoh ruled in Egypt. When the sons of Israel went

down to buy corn of the Egyptian kings, we read not of the civilisation

of Asia Minor, nor did she produce at any period such structures as

the pyramids, or the temples of the Nile, to record the talents of

her architects or the perseverance of her people; it may be that the

student of history will hardly find, during the most flourishing

periods of the Ionian commonwealth, a galaxy of talent, patriotism, and

courage equal to that which spreads its brightness over the palmy days

of Athens, when science, literature, and art flourished under the ægis

of Minerva, and the greatest of her military heroes did not disdain to

take lessons from philosophers, or to superintend the labours of the

sculptor, the painter, and the architect.

Again, if we look to the history of ancient Rome, and consider the

events which occurred there during a thousand years, we might possibly

find more to admire and to attract our attention than anything which

the history of Asia Minor can afford. The systematic legislation and

constitution of the Roman republic, the unrestrained power of the

emperors, the schemes of conquest carried on under both forms of

government, and the boundless wealth amassed in the first years of the

empire, are some of its characteristic features which have never been

repeated elsewhere.

And to mention but one instance more, even Syria itself was also an

object of greater interest than any other district in the universe ever

was, either before or since. The birth of our Saviour, and the events

which took place at Jerusalem during His abode on earth, have stamped

upon that part of Syria a degree of interest and lofty associations

which bears no parallel.

The interest of Asia Minor attaches, in a greater or less degree, to

all ages, from the first dawn of history, through the classic periods

of the Greek republics, and the darker ages of Byzantine misrule,

down to the very times in which we live. Without pretending to give

even a faint sketch of its history, I shall here refer to a few of

the most interesting points by which this part of the world has been

distinguished.

Here was the scene of those remarkable events which the learning or

imagination of the early poets have attributed to the Heroic age. The

Argonautic expedition, starting from the coast of Thessaly, proceeded

through the Propontis and the Euxine, and along the shores of Bithynia,

Paphlagonia, and Pontus, visiting various nations, the descriptions

of which have been handed down to us with an accuracy worthy of

admiration. But a still more interesting locality is presented to us

on the shores of Asia Minor. Between the Simœis and Scamander, and on

the plains of Troy, we may visit the spot where, in the imaginations of

the poet, the gods of antiquity descended from the Olympus and joined

in the sport and contests of mankind. As we approach the period of

classic history, the importance of the country increases. The town of

Sardis was built near the confluence of the gold-bearing Pactolus and

the Hermus; and we are dazzled by the accounts of the wealth of Crœsus,

which attracted the arms and fell under the bravery of the Persians,

who, having crossed the Halys, established their seat of government

in Sardis, in the year 548 B.C. Here they reigned for upwards of two

hundred years, during which period Sardis was sacked by the troops

of Athens; and the myriads of Darius and Xerxes in vain attempted to

revenge the insult of putting chains on a band of freemen.

After this came the expeditions of the younger Cyrus, and the retreat

of the Ten Thousand; and numerous Greek cities, chiefly on the coast

of Ionia, Æolis, and Caria, founded by emigrants and exiles from the

parent state of Greece, had in the meantime sprung up, flourished,

and increased,--at one period independent, at another subject to

Persian rule, but ever sending forth a supply of learned men, who, in

the pursuits of philosophy, music, history, sculpture, painting, and

architecture, were no mean rivals of their European instructors.

But Asia Minor became again the scene of war and conquest. The battle

of the Granicus was an auspicious commencement of the career of

Alexander, and his conquest of the peninsula was secured by the battle

of Issus. But the empire which he founded, fell to pieces when the

hand which had formed it no longer governed. His conquests fell into

the hands of rival generals, and the plains of Asia Minor were amongst

the prizes for which they fought. Antigonus Eumenes and Lysimachus

established themselves in various parts with various success, but a

line of kings reigned at Pergamus in uninterrupted succession until

Attalus Philopator, in 133 B.C., bequeathed his kingdom to the Roman

people.

Another element of discord was thus introduced into this country. Many

years intervened before Rome could be said to have obtained quiet

possession of the bequest. Since the death of Alexander a rival power

to that of the kings of Pergamus had been silently growing up in

the distant province of Pontus, the last king of which, Mithridates

Eupator, exerted all his extraordinary energies, and the resources of

his people, in opposing, for a long time with success, the advance of

the Roman arms. In Cappadocia and in Pontus, in Isauria and in the

mountainous districts of Cilicia, the rocky and almost impenetrable

nature of the country enabled the native tribes long to resist the

invader; and it was not until the time of Julius Cæsar and his

successor, that the whole peninsula became an integral portion of

the territories of the Mistress of the World. The accounts of these

long-contested engagements form some of the most interesting pages in

the works of the writers of the Augustan age.

Another and a brighter epoch was now to dawn upon this portion of the

world; every province and every district felt the high civilisation

and luxurious habits of Rome during the first years of the imperial

government. New towns owed the splendour and magnificence of their

public buildings to the protection of the emperors, while those which

had suffered during the wars were rebuilt and enriched by the same

liberal hands. New honours and privileges were granted to them, and

the products of a favoured clime received fresh encouragement from

universal peace. Even those convulsive throes of nature which, during

this period, destroyed many of her cities and temples, were but

incentives to renewed acts of liberality, as is attested by the coins

and the inscriptions, which the traveller meets with in almost every

part of this peninsula.

But this prosperity was of short duration; the luxury and the extent of

the Roman empire brought with them the accompanying cankers of weakness

and dissolution. Rebellion at home, and insurrection on the frontiers

attended by military insubordination, soon changed the fair features

of peace into the distorted aspect of war; plenty gave way to misery

and religious zeal lent its hand to increase the evil. Asia Minor could

not be expected to escape the calamity--indeed, an undue proportion of

wretchedness seems to have been her lot; for the establishment of the

first Christian churches in her territory added fuel to the contests

between the pagans and Christians; and while the latter destroyed the

temples of paganism, regardless of the beauty of the work or the skill

of the builder, they met with personal cruelties and suffered worse

persecutions at the hands of their idolatrous enemies.

A vain prospect of better days appeared, when Constantine, after

fighting under the cross and conquering Maxentius, laid the foundations

of Constantinople on the site of Byzantium, the seat of the future

Empire of the East. During this period the early history of the church

is intimately associated with that of Asia Minor. It is enough to

allude to the celebrated council of Nicæa and its creed, and to mention

the names of George of Cappadocia, Gregory of Nazianzus, Eusebius, and

St. Basil of Cæsarea. The illusion soon vanished: the apostate Julian,

carried along by a love of speculation, and fond of the philosophy of

the pagans, led the way by his liberalism, to the establishment of

those sects which long agitated the Eastern empire, and shed their

baneful influence over the Christians of the West. Amidst these

calamities, the same hordes of barbarians who had sacked the plains of

Italy and Thrace, carried desolation and ruin into the other parts of

the empire, and while the nations of the West were falling into the

hands of successive northern chieftains, Asia Minor could not escape

the ravages which overwhelmed the eastern provinces.

The annals of the Byzantine empire contain a melancholy list of facts

of violence, intrigue, oppression, and vice. In Sapor, king of Persia,

a powerful and determined enemy came to the aid of these domestic foes,

and a warfare was carried on against him with various success; the

conquest or defence of Asia Minor was the rich prize for which they

fought. But it is most painful to reflect that some of the greatest

cruelties and miseries which were suffered during the fifth century

were owing to the dissensions of the Christian sects, in which the

names of the two patriarchs, Nestorius of Constantinople and Cyril of

Alexandria, were most conspicuous, and the city of Ephesus was the

scene of their disgraceful quarrels.

In the reign of Justinian the contests with Persia still continued,

and the gold-mines of Trebizond became a subject of dispute between

the Greeks and Chosroes I. During his reign the name of Turk first

appears in the page of history. Having driven the Avars from their

northern wildernesses, they reached the Caucasus, from whence they

sent ambassadors to the emperor. Mutual interest dictated the alliance

between them and Justinian against the Persians. This did not, however,

long avail to protect the Empire of the East against the power of the

Great King.

Heraclius ascended the throne A.D. 610, and in the following year

Chosroes II invaded the empire; after the conquest of Syria, Palestine,

and Egypt, his troops marched from the Euphrates to the Thracian

Bosporus, devastating the seacoast of Pontus, sacking Ancyra and taking

Chalcedon by storm. The heroism of Heraclius, which shone forth during

the middle portion of his reign, saved the capital and the empire.

Conveying his army by sea to the Gulf of Issus, and carrying the war

into the enemy’s country, he compelled the Persians to evacuate Asia

Minor and hasten to the defence of Dastagerd and Ctesiphon; and the

battle of Nineveh (A.D. 627) reduced the haughty Chosroes to the state

of a fugitive.

In the eighth century a new incentive to crime and folly burst upon

the Eastern world. The worship of images, which had crept into the

practice of the church, now began to be looked upon as idolatry; and

the vacillating Greeks were visited by this imputation on the one hand,

or by the accusation of impiety on the other, if they renounced the

practice. In the year 718 an adventurer from the mountains of Isauria,

who had the command of the Anatolian legions, taking the name of Leo

III, ascended the throne of Constantinople. The energy with which he

adopted the views and directed the measures of the popular party, soon

gained for him the name of the Iconoclast. The dispute ceased in 842,

on the final establishment of the worship of the images by the Empress

Theodora.

Now a fiercer and more lasting enemy had made his appearance;

unrelenting efforts were directed against the whole Christian world,

from Jerusalem to the Pillars of Hercules and the shores of the

Atlantic; and the plains of Asia Minor fell an easy prey to valour and

numbers. Mohammedanism had, during the last century, spread rapidly

along the southern shore of the Mediterranean; and the worshippers of

the _Koran_ had recruited the ranks of the army of the Faithful with

hosts of Arabs, Saracens, and Moors. The Caliph Harun al-Rashid twice

crossed the plains of Phrygia and Bithynia to invest the heights of

Scutari and the Pontic Heraclea, and compelled Nicephorus I to pay

him an annual tribute. Theophilus, son of Michael II, avenged these

insults and on his fifth expedition penetrated into Syria; but the

Caliph Mutazzim again ravaged the plains of Phrygia and directed his

efforts against Amorium, the birthplace of Michael. The imperial army

was routed and pursued to Dorylæum, which fell into the hands of the

conqueror.

It is not necessary here to dwell upon the rise and progress of the

Turkish nation, or to show how Toghrul Bey, the grandson of Seljuk,

became their leader after the defeat of Mahmud of Ghazni. Alp Arslan,

the nephew of Toghrul, completed the conquest of Armenia and Georgia;

but having penetrated into Phrygia, his troops were driven back to the

Euphrates by the emperor, Romanus Diogenes, a brave soldier, whom the

Empress Eudocia had espoused for the safety of the state. The battle of

Malaskerd was, however, imprudently fought and lost by the emperor, in

August 1071, when the power of the house of Seljuk was established; and

the Asiatic provinces of Rome, now lost to Christendom, were soon after

overrun by the five sons of Kutulmish, a prince of the house of Seljuk,

who established their camp at Kutahiyah. On the death of Alp Arslan by

the hand of an assassin, he was succeeded by his son, the celebrated

Malik Shah.

On his death, in 1092, his empire, extending from the Black Sea to

the confines of Syria, and from the Euphrates to Constantinople, was

divided amongst his five sons, the youngest of whom invaded the Roman

provinces of Asia Minor, and after several years of treachery and folly

on the part of the Greek commanders, the sultan Solyman [Sulaiman]

erected his palace and his fortress at Nicæa, the capital of Bithynia,

and the seat of the Seljukian Dynasty of Rum was planted within a

hundred miles of Constantinople.

The general historian supplies ample details of these interesting

events: Jerusalem, the holy city, the object of veneration and of

pilgrimage, soon fell into the hands of these Seljukian Turks. The

hollow alliance between the emperor and the sultan of Nicæa was burst

asunder; a thrill of horror vibrated from Constantinople to the

distant shores of Britain at the conduct of the Infidels, and a band

of warriors rushed from every part of Christendom to the rescue of the

Holy Sepulchre, and to release the emperor of Byzantium from the iron

grasp of his Turkish conqueror.

In the first crusade their success began with the siege and conquest of

Nicæa, and the plains of Asia Minor became again the battle-field of

nations. Here the chivalry of Europe met the horsemen of the sultan,

and withstood their shock, and Dorylæum became the second time the

scene of a decisive battle; the cities of Antioch of Pisidia and

Iconium recruited the crusaders, after an exhausting march through

the bare and arid plains of Phrygia. Thence they crossed the mountain

barrier of Taurus, and descending into Cilicia, proceeded to the

conquest of Syria and the Holy Land. The establishment of the Genoese

at Constantinople, and in numerous places along the coast and in the

interior, followed the march of the Crusaders, and the Greek emperor

received an insidious foe into his confidence, instead of an open enemy

at his door, whilst in the course of the ensuing half century the

Seljukian Turks had again invaded Asia Minor, and re-established the

flourishing kingdom of Iconium.

But soon a new power appeared on the stage of the war. In the beginning

of the thirteenth century Jenghiz Khan led his Mogul followers from

their native deserts to the conquest of the world. Their progress was

not checked by his death in 1227, for under his sons and grandsons

their power extended over China, Persia, Hungary, Russia, and Syria;

and when checked in Egypt they spread themselves over Armenia and Asia

Minor. Here the Sultans of Iconium offered some resistance to their

progress until Ala-ud-Din sought refuge in Constantinople. But when

at length the tide of Mogul conquest rolled back towards the East,

the Seljukian Dynasty of Iconium was extinct; Orthogrul, one of the

followers of Ala-ud-Din, the last of their sultans, pitched his camp

of four hundred families at Surghut on the banks of the Sangarius; and

his immediate descendants, having penetrated into Bithynia in 1299,

established themselves soon after in the city of Brusa. The division

of Anatolia amongst the Turkish emirs was the immediate result of this

conquest; the remaining Asiatic provinces, with the seven churches

of Asia, were finally lost to the Christian emperor, and the Turkish

rulers of Lydia and Ionia still trample on the ruins of Christian

monuments.

For above 150 years the Turks of the Ottoman line held possession of

Anatolia, and the frequent contests which took place between them and

the naval forces of the Christians only tended to increase the power

of the Ottomans, to facilitate their passage into Europe, and to

bring about their establishment in Thrace and in the neighbourhood of

Adrianople. With the exception of the kingdom of Trebizond, Bajazet

I had conquered all the Asiatic provinces of the emperor, and only a

small extent of ground in the neighbourhood of Constantinople remained

to him in Europe. From the imperial residence at Brusa were issued

commands almost to the Indus, and Constantinople itself appeared to be

within the grasp of Bajazet. Already he had prepared his expedition,

and the capital of the empire was about to become his prey, when a

temporary relief appeared from a new quarter, and Bajazet himself was

overthrown by a stronger arm.

This rival power had sprung up in the wilds about Samarcand, and the

world was again to be conquered by an army of Tatars and Moguls, under

the command of Timur, or Tamerlane. Persia, Tatary, and India had

already yielded to his arms before he turned them against the Ottoman

empire, influenced by the quarrels and dissensions which had arisen

between Bajazet and his Christian neighbours. The genius of Tamerlane

prevailed in the memorable battle of Angora; the sultan lost at once

his kingdom and his liberty, and the conqueror established himself

at Kutahiyah. The sea put a limit to his progress, and, without the

means of transporting his army into Europe, he meditated at Smyrna the

conquest of China, but died on his march to the Celestial empire.

Brusa became again, in 1403, the capital of the Ottoman empire, and

shared with Adrianople the honours of imperial residence; but Anatolia

was distracted for nearly forty years by the civil wars of the sons and

descendants of Bajazet, until Muhammed II ascended the throne, in 1451,

to close the existence of the Byzantine empire. Weakened and exhausted

in each successive reign, and having lost one by one those rich and

fertile provinces which formed the brightest gems in the imperial

diadem, Constantinople was reduced to the last stage of misery, even

before the Turkish host had surrounded its triple fortifications.

It still breathed with convulsive throbs, like a trunk deprived of

its limbs, suffering under the last pulsations of life. Some Greeks

displayed at the last moments an unavailing courage, even after the

enemy had scaled the walls, but it only served to exasperate the

cruelty of their conquerors.

The fall of Constantinople, in 1453, and the loss of Trebizond in 1461,

concluded the history of the Empire of the East. Since that period,

subject to the rule and grasp of Turkish despots, the towns of Asia

Minor have lost their trade and commerce, her population has been

exhausted, and her fairest and richest plains have been left without

care or culture. The authority of the janissaries, the despotism

of the porte, and the revolts of the local governors have kept up,

until within a few years, a system of hostility between the different

provinces, while the uncertain tenure of their command, and their

jealousy of each other, prevented the chiefs who were well disposed

from checking the incursions of the nomad tribes of Turkomans and

Kurds, who had settled in her central plains. These combined causes

paralysed also, for many years, the energies of European travellers.

Dangers and difficulties, which could neither be anticipated nor

prevented, rendered a great part of the interior of Asia Minor a sealed

book to the inquirer; and her many interesting records of antiquity,

towns, temples, citadels, and sepulchral monuments, in various stages

of decay, were long unknown. During this dark period the avarice and

bigotry of the Turks systematically destroyed them, or consigned them

to the chisel or the limekiln.

But there is a dawn, however faint, of happier days in the East. The

bigotry of the Turk has yielded to a more frequent intercourse with

the Christians, and many of the former difficulties are removed by

the establishment, for a time at least, of the authority of the Porte

throughout the Asiatic provinces, from the Euxine to the shores of

Caramania, and from the coast of Ionia to the eastern confines of

Cappadocia, and the effect of this partial improvement is visible in

the crowds of eager and enterprising travellers who direct their steps

to the shores of Ionia and Caria, and penetrate into the districts of

Phrygia, Lydia, and Galatia.

HISTORY IN OUTLINE OF THE MINOR KINGDOMS OF WESTERN ASIA

A PRELIMINARY SURVEY COMPRISING A CURSORY VIEW OF THE SWEEP OF EVENTS,

AND A TABLE OF CHRONOLOGY

THE HITTITES

An important Mongoloid tribe of Asia Minor descended by tradition from

Heth, son of Canaan, son of Ham. They were one of the seven principal

Canaanite tribes. In the days of their might their power extended over

the greater part of Asia Minor, and perhaps into northern Syria. The

extension of Egypt’s power during the XVIIIth Dynasty soon brought the

Pharaohs into contact with the Hittites, or Kheta, as the Egyptians

called them.

1528 B.C. The Hittites fight against Tehutimes III at the battle

of Megiddo.

1400 The power of the Hittites begins to be formidable. They

threaten the Egyptian provinces in Syria, and join their

forces with those of Babylonia and Naharain. They make their

southern capital at Kadesh.

1360 Hittites attacked by Seti I at Kadesh.

1341 =Mau-than-ar=, son of =Maro-sar=, murdered by his

brother =Kheta-sar=, who succeeds to the throne.

1340 Battle of Kadesh. Great victory of Ramses II over the

Hittites and their allies.

1325 Treaty of peace between Kheta-sar, king of the

Hittites, and Ramses II.

1110 The Hittites, or Khatti, as the Assyrians called them,

are overcome by Tiglathpileser I.

882 The Hittites pay tribute to Asshurnazirpal III, who

carries their princes into captivity.

876 Carchemish, once the Hittite capital, now the capital of

the petty state of Sangara, is entered by Asshurnazirpal.

854 Hittites enter into the alliance formed by Ben-Hadad II

of Damascus. They suffer in the defeat at Qarqar. Most of

the states are annexed to Assyria.

717 By this time Sangara is the sole state of the former

Hittite empire that has retained independence. =Pisiris=,

its king, joins with Mita of Moschi to refuse payment of

tribute to Assyria. Sargon II proceeds against him. The

people of Carchemish are transported to Assyria, and the

city is populated with Assyrian colonists. This is the end

of the last remnant of the Hittite empire. Many monuments

of the Hittites have been discovered of recent years--most

important of all, ruins and sculpture in Cappadocia east

of the Halys. The art exhibited on these works is of a

rude, primitive character, although it was influenced in

succession by Babylonian, Egyptian, and Assyrian culture.

THE KINGDOM OF MITANNI

One of the important kingdoms of antiquity was Mitanni

(called Naharain by the Egyptians, and Aram-Naharaim in the

Bible), but at present we have no connected account of its

history. “The kingdom of Mitanni,” says Rogers, “must take

its place among the small states which have had their share

in influencing the progress of the world, but whose own

history we are unable to trace.”

1580 Tehutimes I of Egypt reaches the kingdom of Mitanni in

his Asiatic campaign. In a battle fought on the borders, the

king of Mitanni is defeated. From this time forth there is

constant intercourse between the Nile and the Euphrates.

1522 Tehutimes III extends his conquest as far as Mitanni,

which is made tributary to Egypt.

1470-1400 From the Tel-el-Amarna letters we know that

=Artatana=, =Artashuma=, =Sutarna=, and =Dushratta= are the

names of some of the ruling kings at this period. Between

these and the Pharaohs there are family ties, since several

of the Egyptian rulers married princesses from Mitanni. This

shows that the kingdom is now of some importance.

1400 We find from now on the forces of Mitanni in alliance

with those of the Hittites, and they doubtless play an

important part in the Hittite conquests. In the last years

of the XVIIIth Egyptian Dynasty, they are instrumental in

driving the Egyptians from the land of the Amorites. The

power of Mitanni is increasing. It is constantly allied with

the Canaanitish and Babylonian princes against Egypt.

1225 =Cushan-rish-athaim=, king of Mitanni, overruns Syria

and holds the Israelites in bondage for eight years. After

this we find Aleppo, Hamath, and even Damascus in the hands

of the Aramæans. Out of this occupation came the kingdoms of

Damascus, Hamath, Zobah, etc. Mitanni and the other Aramæan

states in Mesopotamia begin to lose their power as that of

Assyria increases.

1120 Tiglathpileser I conquers much of their territory, and

by the time of Asshurnazirpal III it has become practically

incorporated in the Assyrian dominions.

THE ARAMÆANS

The Aramæans were a people of Semitic race, language, and

religion, who came from northern Arabia and settled in the

region between the western boundaries of Babylonia and the

highlands of Western Asia.

THE KINGDOM OF DAMASCUS

The Aramæan conquests in Syria gave rise to a number of

small states, among them Zobah, Hamath, Patin, and Damascus.

The latter is the only one that attained world-historic

importance, and is that country referred to in the Bible as

the kingdom of Syria. The kings of Damascus first appear in

history in the reign of David.

1000 David makes the king of Damascus pay tribute.

950 Damascus becomes independent of Solomon. =Rezon= is

king. He is succeeded probably by =Hezion=, and then by the

latter’s son, =Tabrimon=, whose names are known to us only

through the Bible (1 Kings xv. 18), although there is every

reason to believe that Hezion is identical with Rezon.

900 =Ben-Hadad I= succeeds to the throne of Damascus. Asa

of Judah purchases, by means of the temple and palace

treasures, the alliance of Ben-Hadad, in his war against

Baasha of Israel. Ben-Hadad invades Israel and brings the

conflict to a close.

870 =Ben-Hadad II= (=Hadad-idri= of the Assyrian monuments).

The kingdom of Damascus now becomes the active enemy of

Israel. Omri and Ahab ally themselves with Phœnicia to

resist it. Ben-Hadad besieges Samaria, but is driven off by

Ahab. The following year the siege is resumed and Ben-Hadad

is again defeated in a battle near Aphek. Ahab suddenly

changes his policy and makes a friendly alliance with

Ben-Hadad to resist the growing power of Assyria.

854 Ben-Hadad is the head of the alliance of Damascus,

Israel, and Hamath, and other states to resist Shalmaneser

II, who invades Hamath. Battle of Qarqar and defeat of the

allies. The alliance is broken and Damascus and Syria again

go to war.

849 Ben-Hadad and Irkhulina of Hamath oppose Shalmaneser,

who has again invaded the latter country. The result seems

to have been undecisive.

846 Shalmaneser invades Hamath a third time and is prevented

from any decisive conquest by Ben-Hadad.

845 =Hazael= succeeds his father Ben-Hadad; probably

murdered him.

842 Hazael, deserted by his former allies, resolves to fight

alone Shalmaneser, who had proceeded against Syria for the

fourth time. Siege of Damascus, with no decisive result.

839 Shalmaneser again attacks Damascus, but is still unable

to subjugate it completely. Damascus now takes the offensive

against Israel. By the end of the century the land east of

Jordan and north of the Arnon has been annexed by Hazael and

his successor =Ben-Hadad III=. But a fresh onslaught from

Assyria gives the Israelites an opportunity to recover their

lost territory.

806-797 Adad-Nirari III makes expeditions to the west and

Damascus, under King =Mari=, who has succeeded Ben-Hadad

III,[10] is compelled to pay heavy tribute in 797.

773 The king of Assyria (either Asshur-dan III or

Shalmaneser III, probably the former) makes a campaign

against Damascus. The kingdom of Damascus is now in a

thoroughly weak condition. Its decline has been rapid.

Besides its subjection by Assyria, it has probably been

forced to become tributary to Israel, now at the height of

its power. It is probably on account of this connection that

735 Pekah forms an alliance with =Rezin= (the successor

though not the immediate one of Mari or Ben-Hadad III)

against Ahaz of Judah, who is attacked. The Syrio-Ephramitic

war begins. Ahaz appeals to Tiglathpileser III for aid,

which is willingly given.

734 Tiglathpileser marches into Syria and defeats Rezin, who

shuts himself up in Damascus.

732 Fall of Damascus. Rezin slain. The inhabitants deported.

The kingdom of Damascus is merged into the Assyrian empire.

HAMATH AND ZOBAH

There were two of the Aramæan kingdoms of Syria, whose

existence was more or less contemporaneous with Damascus,

although they never attained the power of the latter state.

Zobah lay in northeastern Syria, and probably arose out

of the ruins of the Hittite and Mitannian kingdoms. It

seems to have been in conflict with Hamath. Its last king,

=Hadad-ezer=, leads the Syrian forces against David, but is

overthrown (about 1000 B.C.) and Zobah becomes part of the

kingdom of Judah.

Hamath lay to the west of Zobah. Ramses III mentions taking

the land among his conquests about 1200 B.C. It seems to

have been then in Hittite hands, but later on passed to the

Aramæans.

1000 B.C. Before David’s conquest we find =Toi=, king of Hamath,

in conflict with Hadad-ezer of Zobah. After the latter’s

overthrow we find Hamath always in friendly relations with

Judah. Toi’s son =Joram= succeeds him.

854 =Irkhulina=, king of Hamath, joins the Syrian alliance

against Shalmaneser II. The latter invades Hamath, in which

country the battle of Qarqar is fought.

849-468 Shalmaneser II invades Hamath in these years, but

the combined efforts of Irkhulina and Ben-Hadad II prevent

any decisive Assyrian success. After this, Hamath remains

the faithful ally of Assyria, but not a part of the empire.

720 A national party objects to the payment of tribute to

Assyria. The king of Hamath, =Eni-el=, is deposed, and a

usurper, =Il-ubidi= or =Ya-ubidi=, put on the throne. He

prepares to resist Assyria, aided by Hanno of Gaza. Other

states join the confederation. Sargon II immediately invades

Syria. The city of Hamath is taken, and the kingdom becomes

part of the Assyrian empire.

Among the other states of Western Asia deserving, at least,

of mention are Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Philistia. It is

impossible to give any connected account of their history.

The children of Esau settled in Edom, driving the Horites

out. They come under the sway of Judah, but make a few

attempts to regain their independence.

About 743 Tiglathpileser III makes King =Kaush-malik= of

Edom tributary. In Esarhaddon’s time =Kaush-gabri= is

king. Sennacherib makes =Malik-rammu= pay tribute. In

Nebuchadrezzar’s time Edom is attacked by the Babylonians.

During the captivity the Edomites move into portions of

Judea.

Moab has the same origin as Israel. It is incorporated

into David’s kingdom, but recovers its independence in

a degree after his death. Thereafter the more powerful

kings of Israel make war upon it. About 890 Omri makes

=Sichon=, king of Moab, pay tribute, and sacks the capital

Heshbon. About 885 =Kammush-gad= succeeds Sichon, and he,

in turn, is succeeded by his son =Mesha= (_ca._ 855),

whose inscription, known as the “Moabite” stone, is one of

the most famous monuments of antiquity, and the oldest in

the Semitic alphabet. He shakes off the yoke of Israel,

and is afterwards shut up in Kir-Haresheth by the allied

forces of Judah and Israel, but the assailants retire

without a victory. Later the Moabite king pays tribute to

Assyria. Some of them as mentioned doing so are =Shaman=,

=Kammush-nadab=, and =Mussari=. Nebuchadrezzar subjects the

Moabites in his expedition to Egypt.

The history of Ammon, whose capital was Rabbath or Rabbath

Ammon, is similar to that of the other petty kingdoms with

whose names it is constantly allied. After the Exodus the

Israelites find the Ammonites driven out of their ancient

territory, and settled east of the upper Jabbok. Here

they develop a spirit of intense hostility towards the

Israelites, and unite with the Moabites and Philistines

against them.

In the days of Uzziah and Jotham they pay tribute to Judah,

and assist Nebuchadrezzar against Jehoiakim. They continue

to exist always inimical to Jewish power, at least until the

time of Justin Martyr, who mentions them.

The origin of the Philistines is unknown, though it is

supposed that they came from the Egyptian Delta, or perhaps

from Crete. Their principal cities were Askalon, Ashdod,

Gaza, Gath, and Ekron. During the XVIIIth Egyptian Dynasty

they belonged to Egypt. The Philistines may have recovered

their independence after Khun-aten’s death (_ca._ 1400), but

in Ramses II’s time they are again under Egyptian rule. But

with Ramses III the Philistines join the other enemies of

Egypt against him. Saul has a long struggle with them now

at the height of their power and is killed in a Philistine

victory. David conquers them after an arduous struggle.

In Jehoram’s time, 845 B.C., they and the Arabians invade

Judah and attack Jerusalem. In 797 Adad-nirari III receives

tribute from Philistia, which is a new conquest. In 734 the

Philistine cities are taken by Tiglathpileser III. Hanno,

king of Gaza, flees to Egypt. In 720 Hanno and Il-ubidi of

Hamath form a confederation against Sargon, but are badly

defeated at Raphia. Hanno is captured and borne off to

Assyria. Philistia becomes an Assyrian province.

THE LESSER PEOPLES OF ASIA MINOR

PHRYGIA

So far as we know, the Phrygians were of a race closely akin

to some of the tribes of Macedonia and Thrace. Their country

lay on the central plateau of Asia Minor and extended east

to the river Halys. The date of the origin of the kingdom is

unknown, but Greek tradition tells of rulers at Gordium, on

the Gangerius, among whom the names of =Gordius= and =Midas=

are common. In the ninth century B.C. its power was at its

greatest. About the end of the eighth century B.C. =Midas=,

king of Phrygia, is said to have married Damodice, daughter

of Agamemnon, the last king of Cyme. After this time the

power of Phrygia declines before that of Lydia. About 660

B.C. the Cimmerians sweep over Phrygia, and =Midas= the

king commits suicide. The Cimmerians hold the country until

the end of the seventh century, when it comes under Lydian

rule, the matter being definitely fixed by the treaty of

585. After this the country is ruled by native princes under

subjection to Lydia until the fall of Crœsus in 546, when it

becomes part of the Persian empire.

Phrygian culture is distinctly non-oriental in character and

bears a distinct resemblance to that of early Greece.

Alexander the Great placed Phrygia under the command of

Antigonus; then it passed to Seleucus. The western half of

the country was included in the kingdom of Pergamus. Under

the Roman Empire Phrygia formed part of the province of Asia.

LYCIA

The Lycians were a small nation in the southwest of Asia

Minor, between Caria and Pamphylia. They alone among the

peoples of this region preserved their independence against

the Lydian kings, but they succumbed to Harpagus, the

general of Cyrus, in 545 B.C.

After a while they recovered their independence, and in

a degree maintained it by joining the Athenian Maritime

League. Alexander had no difficulty in conquering this

people, and in his empire they were ruled sometimes by the

Ptolemies and sometimes by the Seleucidæ. Nevertheless, they

managed to preserve their federal institutions, even when

subject to and controlled by Rome. Not until the time of

Claudius was Lycia formally annexed to the Roman Empire.

MYSIA

The Mysians were a race allied to the Lydians. They formed

part of the conquests of Alyattes and Crœsus, and passed

with Lydia into the Persian empire.

At Alexander’s death the country was annexed to the Syrian

monarchy, of which it formed part until the defeat of

Antiochus the Great. The Romans transferred the country to

the dominions of Eumenes of Pergamus as a reward for his

services during the war. Pergamus was the most important

city of Mysia, and under Alexander’s successors became the

seat of a flourishing Greek monarchy. It became prominent

under =Attalus I= in the third century B.C. The successor of

Attalus, =Eumenes II=, greatly extended and beautified the

city. When =Attalus III= died, 133 B.C., he bequeathed the

kingdom to Rome, and thus all Mysia became a portion of the

province of Asia.

CAPPADOCIA

The Cappadocians were originally a Semitic people. They

absorbed a portion of the invading Cimmerians in the eighth

century B.C.