illustrious. The situation and greatness of the city are described
in the later excerpts from Diodorus of Sicily, in Strabo, and in
Appian’s Punica. One point, however, must not be lost sight of in these
descriptions, viz., the ancients assume that Carthage covered the
peninsula which was connected with the mainland by the isthmus, and that
the isthmus was cut off by means of a wall. But the fact is, that the
whole of the peninsula was not occupied by the city, which, in that case,
would have been immensely large. M. Humbert, a Dutch lieutenant, who
was long engaged in the service of the pasha of Tunis, and was a good
observer, discovered during his excavations, some years ago, the ruins
of ancient Carthage and the walls by which it was surrounded. He made an
excellent ground plan of those remains, which, however, has never been
published, but exists only in MS. According to this plan, the peninsula
contained two towns, the ancient Punic Carthage on the south side,
perhaps not occupying one-half of the peninsula, and Roman Carthage on
the other side towards Rome, which had been built by J. Caesar: lying
under the curse of Scipio, the site of the ancient city could not be
occupied by a new town. The remains of Roman Carthage are far more
numerous than those of the more ancient city; the little that is to be
seen of the latter consists of gigantic works about the harbour (Cothon).
Ancient Carthage consisted of two parts, viz., the city called _Bozra_
(the Greeks call it Βύρσα), and the suburb _Megara_, the Punic name
of which was probably Magal. The remaining part of the peninsula may
have been included under this name. These suburban districts were
protected against the attacks of the barbarous Libyans by walls across
the isthmus.[77] We must not imagine that there was a separate acra
besides Byrsa, the elevation of which is insignificant, only the point
containing the temple of Aesculapius may perhaps be compared to a
real acra. According to Timaeus, Carthage was built thirty-seven[78]
years before the commencement of the Olympiads; this may be regarded
as a settled date, as we see from the work of Josephus against Apion,
for the Phoenician authorities, which he followed, are thoroughly
trustworthy, and perfectly agree with the books of Samuel and Kings in
the Old Testament. The books of Judges are of later origin, and contain
chronological impossibilities; but from the time of David we have
contemporary and quite trustworthy history; some few erroneous dates are
probably mere slips in writing. In the reigns of Manasseh and Amon there
are a few incorrect statements, and I have shown where the mistake of
from twenty to thirty years is probably concealed,[79] but I cannot say
how the text is to be emended. After the first three centuries, Carthage
had already acquired many possessions in Byzacene, that is, the country
from the headland on the bay to the lesser Syrtis; in Sardinia, too,
it exercised a powerful influence, and some Punic settlements already
existed in Spain. But not long before that time, Carthage was still
engaged in deadly war with the Libyans, and its rule certainly did
not extend to the interior of Africa. The real greatness of the city
lasted about 150 years, from about the close of the Peloponnesian to the
commencement of the first Punic war.
UTICA (Atica, the Old Town, as opposed to Carthage, or New Town) was
situated not far from Carthage. The simplicity and constant repetition
of the Phoenician names show the want of poetry in that nation; the
Greeks have an endless variety of names. _Utica_ and _Hippo_ are the
two old towns on that coast; they were more ancient than Carthage,
and independent of it, being sometimes even allied with it on equal
terms. This honour they retained until the second Punic war; they also
concluded treaties with full independence, but were virtually subject to
Carthage. Hence in the war of Agathocles, both declared in his favour,
and in the same manner they acted in the war of the mercenaries, until,
in the end, they separated themselves entirely and joined the Romans,
whence, notwithstanding their Punic origin, they remained _civitates
foederatae_. It is interesting to observe, how easily Greek culture was
engrafted upon those Punians; the Carthaginian senate, on one occasion,
found it necessary to enact a law against it,[80] and at times Utica had
a theatre, in which Greek plays, translated into Punic, were performed.
Both St. Augustin and Apuleius (the latter was a native of Madaura in
the interior) spoke Punic as their mother tongue, whence we see that the
people throughout the province of Carthage spoke Punic, and that the
language of the Amazirghs had become extinct. In some parts of the coast,
Latin was spoken. When the Arabs conquered the country, the inhabitants
still employed the Punic language, and the adoption of the Arabic was
facilitated by the kindred nature of the two languages. The foreign
elements in the languages of Tunis and Malta are probably derived from
that of the Amazirghs; Latin also is mixed up with them.
The coast of _Byzacene_ is one of the most fertile in the world: the
olive-tree, which is one of the richest blessings of the temperate zone,
was, strange to say, not introduced into those parts until a late period,
and that district is the only one in which the palm and the olive-tree
grow side by side. In the earlier times, Carthage obtained its oil from
Greece and Italy. The coast was studded with towns, just like the country
of Cyrene. Notwithstanding the destruction of Carthage, those countries
were perhaps never so well cultivated and so thickly peopled as under the
Roman emperors, especially in the reign of Severus, as is attested by
Tertullian, a contemporary writer, and by the immense number of ruins in
the territory of Tunis.
_Zeugitana_ is the basin of the bay of Tunis. The southern part of the
eastern coast of Tunis was called _Byzacion_, _Byzacene_ or _Byzacitis_.
_Tunis_ deserves to be mentioned among the provincial towns on account of
its subsequent importance, of which antiquity knows nothing.
The greater part of the Carthaginian territory was given by the Romans to
Masinissa, who, by the most shameless usurpation, and by the support of
the most faithless policy on the part of the Romans, endeavoured to make
himself master of it; for after the second Punic war, the Carthaginians
still possessed an extensive territory. Even before, Numidia had received
nearly all the districts which had been conquered in war, such as Zama,
and other places.
The Numidian kings resided at CIRTA, that is, “the town,” in the Punic
language, which is another proof of the poverty of its nomenclature. This
town rose to greatness under Masinissa, and still more under Micipsa,
who drew into it a Greek colony, just as in the time of Louis XIV,
French colonies were established in the north of Germany. The time of
that colony belongs to the period in which Corinth was destroyed and the
whole of Greece was devastated, and when the poor Greeks were scattered
all over the earth. Under Constantine the Great, its name was changed
into _Constantina_, and large Roman ruins still exist there. It was a
Roman colony founded by P. Sitius of Nuceria, who assembled an army of
Roman fugitives and Gauls that had served under the African princes,
and received Cirta from Julius Caesar, after the conquest of Juba, as a
place to settle in. It is, therefore, a colony of quite a peculiar kind,
differing essentially from all other colonies.
AETHIOPIA, AEGYPTUS.
The Ethiopians, with the earliest Greeks, are the black people in the
south-east and south-west, whence Indians and Ethiopians are synonymous,
the southern Indians being black. I believe that the Indian peninsula
was conquered by the Indians, and that the black race was subdued by
them. Ethiopia, with the Greeks, is only a vague name for Africa. Its
derivation from αἴθω is erroneous, but it is doubtful whether the nation
had any special name by which it designated itself. We must, however,
distinguish the _Leucaethiopes_, that is, the Fellatahs, or Fellahs,
whom Ptolemy distinctly places on the Senegal, to which locality they
are also assigned by the great D’Anville. The name Ethiopians was
afterwards limited to the Abyssinian race and the tribes belonging to
them, and these latter nations still call their country Ithopya, though
we can hardly suppose the name to be of native origin. The excerpts from
Agatharchides of Cnidos, a most excellent writer of the seventh century
of Rome, who for a long time resided in Egypt, but does not call the
nations by their own names, but only by appellatives, are very obscure,
and have been entirely neglected. He gives information about nations
which are found at present only in the innermost parts of Africa: he
describes, e.g., the Hottentots and Bushmen, whom he calls Acridophagi,
that is, eaters of grasshoppers, so that even those living in the
distant south were noticed by him. The Hottentots cut out one of their
testicles, a fact with which he was acquainted.
Ethiopia proper is highly remarkable in ancient history: in Scripture
it is called Koosh, and its kings are distinguished from those of
the Mauri. The country of these Mauri was in very ancient times a
great state in the south of Egypt; its capital, _Meroe_, contrary to
the express testimony of the ancients, has generally been placed too
near Egypt; it was probably situated in the neighbourhood of Sennaar.
The Meroites had a peculiar kind of civilisation; and there can be
no doubt that the hieroglyphics, and all that we afterwards find
as Egyptian civilisation, originated among them. At a very remote
time they conquered Egypt; the ancients themselves trace to them the
knowledge and religion of the Egyptians; they describe their monuments
as Ethiopian, and all that can be made out by historical inquiry is
confirmatory of this view. The southernmost monuments of Egypt, between
the two cataracts, are the grandest and most ancient; then follows
Thebes, and as we advance northward, the monuments become smaller and
more insignificant. But monuments are found also higher up the river
to the south of Meroe. The accounts in Diodorus about the condition
of that city are perfectly credible and satisfactory. The Egyptians,
like the Celtiberians, Celtoligyans and others, were a mixed people, in
which one nation ruled while the other obeyed. In the Greek documents
of Egypt, such as contracts, and the like, we find a singular custom,
occasioned by the extremely small number of proper names: the notary,
in order to prevent confusion, added a description of the persons
concerned. Accordingly, we can clearly distinguish the different races,
for we find such characteristics as short, yellow, flat nose, curly
hair, and the like.[81] The most ancient idols resemble negroes, as,
for example, the celebrated Isis of Elephantine. Among the mummies,
too, there are a great many negro forms, faces altogether non-European,
different both in their skulls and teeth; and this is another sign that
Egypt was conquered by the Ethiopians, who settled among the conquered
people. Champollion the younger is not only an honest man, but has no
doubt discovered the truth. The most ancient documents we have, go
back as far as the eighteenth dynasty of Manetho; and the seventeenth
and eighteenth dynasties are probably the period when the yoke of the
Hycsos was thrown off in consequence of this conquest. The original
inhabitants were probably Libyans, who extended as far as lake Mareotis,
for Mareotis is a Libyan name; and Egyptians, in the sense in which
Herodotus understands the name, do not occur beyond the Canobian mouth of
the Nile. The original inhabitants, therefore, may have been under the
dominion of a Semitic race, which among the Egyptians bore the name of
Hycsos, and was intensely hated by the later Egyptians. This expulsion of
the Hycsos, which is so often represented on monuments, was the result
of the establishment of the Kooshites in Upper Egypt, who thence also
spread over Lower Egypt. The modern Egyptians have scarcely a trace left
of the ancient physiognomy; their features are rather Libyan. The Copts
have harsh and rude features, but they are just those of the Berbers,
whence they are different from the Arabs and Syrians. The mummies which
are brought to Europe belong to the higher castes, descended for the most
part from Ethiopians—a race which has now disappeared: the great mass of
the nation consisted of natives. The settlement of the Egyptian warriors
(μάχιμοι) in the south of Meroe, of which Herodotus speaks, is nothing
else but another instance of the confusion of the two poles in legends
about migrations; arising from the fact that a tribe was found in those
southern parts resembling the one ruling in Lower Egypt. The story, as it
is related, is only ridiculous. This also accounts for the institution of
castes, for wherever they exist they originate in conquest.
Upper and Lower Egypt differ most widely from each other: the former
is a narrow and deep valley, which is but rarely overflowed by the
river; Middle Egypt is more frequently exposed to inundations; and Lower
Egypt, in antiquity, was put under water by every rising of the Nile;
at present it is only the districts between the arms of the river and
the neighbourhood of Damietta that are overflowed. This is accounted
for by the circumstance that after every inundation the river leaves
behind a stratum of mud, whereby the country is constantly raised: on
the bank the different years may be traced by very thin strata, a fact
which has been unjustly denied. In ancient times, the arms of the Nile
were large rivers, while at present ships of some size cannot sail
into any of the mouths of the river, because the bed has been so much
elevated. But the surrounding country has been raised much more; for in
the time of Herodotus all the towns were situated on hills rising above
the ground which was usually inundated; but this is not the case now,
the lower parts having been filled up, and the extensive marshes in the
Delta having, for the most part, become arable land, while the ancient
lakes are changed into marshes. Upper Egypt must have been irrigated
by artificially raising the water. There is, moreover, this remarkable
change in the climate of Egypt, that, while in Herodotus’ time it never
rained in Upper Egypt, at present there are occasional showers, though
never without violent thunderstorms.
THEBES was the ancient capital of Upper Egypt; but it had fallen from
its greatness even before the Persian conquest, for Psammetichus, for
the sake of commerce, had transferred the capital to Lower Egypt, and
he was strong through the support of foreigners. From that time, Thebes
was always in opposition to the rulers; it was eclipsed by Memphis,
and afterwards by Sais, but it still regarded itself as the repository
of ancient wisdom and as the venerable seat of religion. The city was
greatly deserted and decayed; but there is no reason for doubting its
immense magnitude; its ruins are gigantic, and its temples are as vast
as cities. Thebes received its death-blow during the unfortunate
rebellion against Ptolemy Physcon; under the Romans, too, it was
frequently the centre of insurrection.
PTOLEMAIS, the next town after Thebes down the river, was founded by the
first or second Ptolemy against the seditious disposition of the Thebans;
it was a σύστημα Ἑλληνικὸν in the proper sense of the term, with Greek
institutions, both public and private, and Greek was the language of the
place. By means of this city, the Ptolemies endeavoured to keep Upper
Egypt in subjection, while, on the other hand, they admitted colonisation
to Alexandria for similar purposes, exercising their power from above
through a number of local magistrates. In other respects, the Ptolemies
did not favour Greek colonisation as much as the Seleucidae, for they
confined it to Ptolemais and Alexandria.[82]
MEMPHIS never was comparable to Thebes in size and importance, for it
contained only very few large buildings, of which at present no traces
exist. All the buildings, such as royal palaces and the like, must have
consisted of unburnt bricks. The city was large and populous, but it
already represents a different state of things: the transfer of the
capital to this place must be regarded as the epoch in which the pyramids
were built, that is, as the age of Sesostris. Its citadel is called
λευκὸν τεῖχος (_arx alba_, _murus albus_ is a wrong translation), just
as the walls of Moscow had different colours, and as at Ecbatana the
parapets of the different circles.[83]
SAIS, a still more recent capital, was built by Psammetichus and his
successors, entirely with a view to be near the sea. In its vicinity were
the _castra praetoria_ of the Ionians and Carians, by the aid of which
those kings maintained their dominion.
ALEXANDRIA was, properly speaking, situated beyond the frontiers of
Egypt, and it was only on the consideration that water of the Nile from
the arm of Canobus flowed into lake Mareotis, that it could be said
to belong to Egypt, for it stood in reality on Libyan ground. It had
been a much frequented port even in the time of the Egyptian kings,
being protected by the island of Pharos at the entrance of it; but the
kings kept a garrison there for the purpose of preventing strangers
from landing. The place had formerly been called _Rhacotis_. Alexander
is justly praised for having perceived the advantages of the locality,
which is so well fitted to form a point of communication between Africa,
Europe, and Asia: he was not generally very fortunate in his choice of
places. Alexandria was probably destined by him to be the capital of
his empire, seeing he intended to conquer, at least, the north coast of
Africa and southern Italy, and in general all countries so far as he
was not checked by the temperate zone and his own ambition. Of the city
founded by Alexander, every trace has disappeared, and all that remains
belongs to the Roman period. The city rose with wonderful rapidity,
and three distinct bodies of citizens were formed in it. The noblest
consisted of Macedonians and Greeks, who, like Greek citizens, were
divided into phylae and demi. The intention was that it should appear
as a free city; and the Macedonians and Greeks were according to all
appearance, not kept distinct. The second part, consisting of a numerous
Jewish colony, formed a demos, enjoying civil, but no political, rights;
these Jews were not allowed to dwell in three out of the five regions
into which the city was divided. The third body, which in point of
numbers was the largest, consisted of native Egyptians, who, however,
were regarded almost as bondsmen, like the Lettonians and Esthonians
at Reval and Riga. Cleomenes, by Alexander’s command the founder of
Alexandria, was a wicked adventurer, but an able man. The city rose
greatly even under the first Ptolemy; but it afterwards continued to
increase in consequence of its extremely favourable situation. It was the
legitimate staple of commerce, which had there its necessary centre; it
was almost in the exclusive enjoyment of the trade with Egypt, Africa,
Arabia, and India. Ptolemy Physcon destroyed the greater part of the
Macedonian and Greek inhabitants. Caesar’s war was very destructive,
for the struggle was carried on in the very streets of the city; and
from that time the suburb in the island of Pharos remained deserted;
at least under Tiberius it still was so. During the empire, Alexandria
was the scene of several insurrections; the one occurring in the reign
of Diocletian was fearful, but that emperor took such bloody revenge,
that the city probably never recovered; and for a century afterwards the
whole part called Bruchion was quite uninhabited. D’Anville has made a
ground-plan of Alexandria.
The island of _Pharos_ was situated in front of the city, and between
it and the coast there were excellent places for anchoring, which
communicated with one another, but were separated by cliffs. The
Ptolemies constructed a causeway across the narrow channel by means of
draw-bridges. Thus arose the two harbours, the old and the new one, which
are at present separated by a neck of land, but are much inferior to
what they were in antiquity; they have been spoiled during a long period
of barbarous neglect, and especially by throwing ballast overboard. The
ships of the Mahommedans enter only the western port, which is the safer
one. The island of Pharos contained the celebrated light-house, one
of the improvements of an age in which the feelings and the heart had
already become greatly deteriorated, but in which the mechanical arts had
made considerable progress. Lucian, who often embellishes history, here
also furnishes a story which is as absurd as it well can be. He says that
Sostratus of Cnidus built this light-house, and that, against the will
of Ptolemy, he caused his own name to be engraved under the inscription
in praise of the king.[84] But according to Strabo, Sostratos was the
king’s minister, and acquired the special favour of his sovereign by
building the light-house at his own expense. The inscription, Σώστρατος
Δεξιφανοῦς Κνίδιος θεοῖς σωτῆρσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν πλωιζομένων is quite in the
style of the time; the θεοὶ σωτῆρες are Ptolemy and Berenice. The whole
space between the harbour and lake Mareotis was occupied by the city of
Alexandria, and in the time of Augustus a large suburb is said to have
existed at a distance of thirty stadia from the city, in the direction of
Canobus. Alexandria is a classical place in the history of nations and of
literature: it was the residence of Eratosthenes, the first geographer we
meet with in the history of the world.[85]
NAUCRATIS, below Sais in Lower Egypt, was a Greek settlement, under
the supremacy of Egypt, nearly in the same manner in which Macao is a
Portuguese town: Greeks dwelt there and had their own magistrate, or, so
to speak, their own consul. Many authors are said to have been natives
of the place; Phylarchus, e.g., is called Naucratites, but it was mere
pedantry and affectation to speak of Naucratis instead of Alexandria as
the Greek city.
The Egyptian towns generally had two names, one Egyptian and the other
Greek; the native names are preserved in Coptic fragments, and have been
made out by Champollion; a map also has been made with these names. The
modern names are formed from the Arabic.
SOME MORE GREEK COLONIES.
PHASELIS, on the coast of Lycia, was a Doric colony; but the date of its
foundation is unknown. The place deserves to be noticed as the frontier
town between Greece and the barbarians, in what is commonly called the
peace of Cimon. This peace probably never existed as a regular treaty
of peace, but there certainly was a treaty between the Greeks and the
satraps of Asia Minor, which the later Greeks, contrary to historical
truth, extended into a peace.[86]
PAMPHYLIA is a country full of large and flourishing towns, of which we
have numerous coins with a peculiar language, and an alphabet akin to
the Greek; these coins have all the beauty of Greek art, and we may well
ask, whether Greece ever had anything more beautiful. The Cilician coins,
especially those of Tarsus, are of the same kind. We do not know to what
race those people belonged; certain it is that they were not barbarians
any more than the Lycians and Lydians. In regard to intellectual culture
and political organisation, they were equal to the Greeks. Lycia had a
very happy federative constitution, quite in the spirit and according to
the principles of the Greeks.
CYPRUS.