The Phoenician alphabet--Its wide use--Its merits--Question
of its origin--Its defects--Phoenician writing and language--
Resemblance of the language to Hebrew--In the vocabulary--
In the grammar--Points of difference between Phoenician and
Hebrew--Scantiness of the literature--Phoenician history of
Philo Byblius--Extracts--Periplus of Hanno--Phoenician
epigraphic literature--Inscription of Esmunazar--Inscription
of Tabnit--Inscription of Jehav-melek--Marseilles
inscription--Short inscriptions on votive offerings and
tombs--Range of Phoenician book-literature.
The Phoenician alphabet, like the Hebrew, consisted of twenty-two
characters, which had, it is probable, the same names with the Hebrew
letters,[0131] and were nearly identical in form with the letters used
anciently by the entire Hebrew race. The most ancient inscription in the
character which has come down to us is probably that of Mesha,[0132] the
Moabite king, which belongs to the ninth century before our era.
The next in antiquity, which is of any considerable length, is that
discovered recently in the aqueduct which brings the water into the pool
of Siloam,[0133] which dates probably from the time of Hezekiah, ab. B.C.
727-699. Some short epigraphs on Assyrian gems, tablets, and cylinders
belong apparently to about the same period. The series of Phoenician and
Cilician coins begins soon after this, and continues to the time of the
Roman supremacy in Western Asia. The soil of Phoenicia Proper, and of
the various countries where the Phoenicians established settlements or
factories, as Cyprus, Malta, Sicily, Sardinia, Southern Gaul, Spain, and
North Africa, has also yielded a large crop of somewhat brief legends,
the “inscription of Marseilles”[0134] being the most important of them.
Finally there have been found within the last few years, in Phoenicia
itself, near Byblus and Sidon, the three most valuable inscriptions of
the entire series--those of Jehavmelek, Esmunazar and Tabnit--which have
enabled scholars to place the whole subject on a scientific basis.
It is now clear that the same, or nearly the same, alphabet was in
use from a very early date over the greater part of Western Asia--in
Phoenicia, Moab, Judæa, Samaria, Lycia, Caria, Phrygia, &c.--that it was
adopted, with slight alterations only, by the Etruscans and the Greeks,
and that from them it was passed on to the nations of modern Europe, and
acquired a quasi-universality. The invention of this alphabet was, by
the general consent of antiquity, ascribed to the Phoenicians;[0135]
and though, if their claim to priority of discovery be disputed, it is
impossible to prove it, their practical genius and their position among
the nations of the earth are strong subsidiary arguments in support of
the traditions.
The Phoenician alphabet, or the Syrian script, as some call it,[0136]
did not obtain its general prevalence without possessing some peculiar
merits. Its primary merit was that of simplicity. The pictorial systems
of the Egyptians and the Hittites required a hand skilled in drawing to
express them; the cuneiform syllabaries of Babylonia, Assyria, and Elam
needed an extraordinary memory to grasp the almost infinite variety in
the arrangement of the wedges, and to distinguish each group from all
the rest; even the Cypriote syllabary was of awkward and unnecessary
extent, and was expressed by characters needlessly complicated. The
Phoenician inventor, whoever he was, reduced letters to the smallest
possible number, and expressed them by the simplest possible forms.
Casting aside the idea of a syllabary, he reduced speech to its ultimate
elements, and set apart a single sign to represent each possible variety
of articulation, or rather each variety of which he was individually
cognisant. How he fixed upon his signs, it is difficult to say.
According to some, he had recourse to one or other of previously
existing modes of expressing speech, and merely simplified the
characters which he found in use. But there are two objections to this
view. First, there is no known set of characters from which the early
Phoenician can be derived with any plausability. Resemblances no doubt
may be pointed out here and there, but taking the alphabet as a whole,
and comparing it with any other, the differences will always be quite
as numerous and quite as striking as the similarities. For instance, the
writer of the article on the “Alphabet” in the “Encyclopædia Britannica”
(1876) derives the Phoenician letters from letters used in the Egyptian
hieratic writing,[0137] but his own table shows a marked diversity in at
least eleven instances, a slight resemblance in seven or eight, a strong
resemblance in no more than two or three. Derivation from the Cypriote
forms has been suggested by some; but here again eight letters are very
different, if six or seven are similar. Recently, derivation from the
Hittite hieroglyphs has been advocated,[0138] but the alleged instances
of resemblance touch nine characters only out of the twenty-two. And
real resemblance is confined to three or four. Secondly, no theory of
derivation accounts for the Phoenician names of their letters, which
designate objects quite different from those represented by the Egyptian
hieroglyphs, and equally different from those represented by the Hittite
letters. For instance, the Egyptian _a_ is the ill-drawn figure of an
eagle, the Phoenician _alef_ has the signification of “ox;” the _b_
of the Egyptians is a hastily drawn figure of a crane, the Phoenician
_beth_ means “a house.”
On the whole, it seems most probable that the Phoenicians began with
their own hieroglyphical system, selecting an object to represent the
initial sound of its name, and at first drawing that object, but that
they very soon followed the Egyptian idea of representing the original
drawing in a conventional way, by a few lines, straight or curved.
Their hieroglyphic alphabet which is extant is an alphabet in the second
stage, corresponding to the Egyptian hieratic, but not derived from it.
Having originally represented their _alef_ by an ox’s head, they found
a way of sufficiently indicating the head by three lines {...}, which
marked the horns, the ears, and the face. Their _beth_ was a house in
the tent form; their _gimel_ a camel, represented by its head and neck;
their _daleth_ a door, and so on. The object intended is not always
positively known; but, where it is known, there is no difficulty in
tracing the original picture in the later conventional sign.
The Phoenician alphabet was not without its defects. The most remarkable
of these was the absence of any characters expressive of vowel sounds.
The Phoenician letters are, all of them, consonants; and the reader is
expected to supply the vowel sounds for himself. There was not even any
system of pointing, so far as we know, whereby, as in Hebrew and Arabic,
the proper sounds were supplied. Again, several letters were made to
serve for two sounds, as _beth_ for both _b_ and _v_, _pe_ for both _p_
and _f_, _shin_ for both _s_ and _sh_, and _tau_ for both _t_ and _th_.
There were no forms corresponding to the sounds _j_ or _w_. On the other
hand, there was in the alphabet a certain amount of redundancy. _Tsade_
is superfluous, since it represents, not a simple elemental sound, but a
combination of two sounds, _t_ and _s_. Hence the Greeks omitted it, as
did also the Oscans and the Romans. There is redundancy in the two forms
for _k_, namely _kaph_ and _koph_; in the two for _t_, namely _teth_
and _tau_; and in the two for _s_, namely _samech_ and _shin_. But no
alphabet is without some imperfections, either in the way of excess or
defect; and perhaps we ought to be more surprised that the Phoenician
alphabet has not more faults than that it falls so far short of
perfection as it does.
The writing of the Phoenicians was, like that of the majority of the
Semitic nations, from right to left. The reverse order was entirely
unknown to them, whether employed freely as an alternative, as in Egypt,
or confined, as in Greece, to the alternate lines. The words were, as
a general rule, undivided, and even in some instances were carried over
the end of one line into the beginning of another. Still, there are
examples where a sign of separation occurs between each word and the
next;[0139] and the general rule is, that the words do not run over
the line. In the later inscriptions they are divided, according to the
modern fashion, by a blank space;[1310] but there seems to have been an
earlier practice of dividing them by small triangles or by dots.
The language of the Phoenicians was very close indeed to the Hebrew,
both as regards roots and as regards grammatical forms. The number
of known words is small, since not only are the inscriptions few and
scanty, but they treat so much of the same matters, and run so nearly in
the same form, that, for the most part, the later ones contain nothing
new but the proper names. Still they make known to us a certain number
of words in common use, and these are almost always either identical
with the Hebrew forms, or very slightly different from them, as the
following table will demonstrate:--
Phoenician Hebrew English
Ab {...} {...} father
Aben {...} {...} stone
Adon {...} {...} lord
Adam {...} {...} man
Aleph {...} {...} an ox
Akh {...} {...} brother
Akhar {...} {...} after
Am {...} {...} mother
Anak {...} {...} I
Arets {...} {...} earth, land
Ash {...} {...} who, which
Barak {...} {...} to bless
Bath {...} {...} daughter
Ben {...} {...} son
Benben {...} {...} grandson
Beth {...} {...} house, temple
Ba’al {...} {...} lord, citizen
Ba’alat {...} {...} lady, mistress
Barzil {...} {...} iron
Dagan {...} {...} corn
Deber {...} {...} to speak, say
Daleth {...} {...} door
Zan {...} {...} this
Za {...} {...} this
Zereng {...} {...} seed, race
Har {...} {...} mountain
Han {...} {...} grace, favour
Haresh {...} {...} carpenter
Yom {...} {...} day, also sea
Yitten {...} {...} to give
Ish {...} {...} man
Ishath {...} {...} woman, wife
Kadesh {...} {...} holy
Kol {...} {...} every, all
Kol {...} {...} voice
Kohen {...} {...} priest
Kohenath {...} {...} priestess
Kara {...} {...} to call
Lechem {...} {...} bread
Makom {...} {...} a place
Makar {...} {...} a seller
Malakath {...} {...} work
Melek {...} {...} king
Mizbach {...} {...} altar
Na’ar {...} {...} boy, servant
Nehusht {...} {...} brass
Nephesh {...} {...} soul
Nadar {...} {...} to vow
‘Abd {...} {...} slave, servant
‘Am {...} {...} people
‘Ain {...} {...} eye, fountain
‘Ath {...} {...} time
‘Olam {...} {...} eternity
Pen {...} {...} face
Per {...} {...} fruit
Pathach {...} {...} door
Rab {...} {...} lord, chief
Rabbath {...} {...} lady
Rav {...} {...} rain, irrigation
Rach {...} {...} spirit
Rapha {...} {...} physician
Shamam {...} {...} the heavens
Shemesh {...} {...} the sun
Shamang {...} {...} to hear
Shenath {...} {...} a year
Shad {...} {...} a field
Sha’ar {...} {...} a gate
Shalom {...} {...} peace
Shem {...} {...} a name
Shaphat {...} {...} a judge
Sopher {...} {...} a scribe
Sakar {...} {...} memory
Sar {...} {...} a prince
Tsedek {...} {...} just
The Phoenician numerals, so far as they are known to us, are identical,
or nearly identical, with the Hebrew. _’Ahad_ {...} is “one;” _shen_
{...}, “two;” _shalish_ {...}, “three;” _arba_ {...}, “four;” _hamesh_
{...}, “five;” _eshman_ {...}, “eight;” _’eser_ {...}, “ten;” and so on.
Numbers were, however, by the Phoenicians ordinarily expressed by signs,
not words--the units by perpendicular lines: | for “one,” || for “two,”
||| for “three,” and the like; the tens by horizontal ones, either
simple, {...}, or hooked at the right end, {...}; twenty by a sign
resembling a written capital _n_, {...}; one hundred by a sign still
more complicated, {...}.
The grammatical inflexions, the particles, the pronouns, and the
prepositions are also mostly identical. The definite article is
expressed, as in Hebrew, by _h_ prefixed. Plurals are formed by the
addition of _m_ or _th_. The prefix _eth_ {...} marks the accusative.
There is a _niphal_ conjugation, formed by prefixing _n_. The full
personal pronouns are _anak_ {...} = “I” (compare Heb. {...}); _hu_
{...}, “he” (compare Heb. {...}); _hi_ {...}, “she” (compare Heb.
{...}); _anachnu_, “we” (compare Heb. {...}); and the suffixed pronouns
are _-i_, “me, my;” _-ka_, “thee, thy;” _-h_ (pronounced as _-oh_ or
_-o_), “him, his” (compare Heb. {...}); _-n_ “our,” perhaps pronounced
_nu_; and _-m_, “their, them,” pronounced _om_ or _um_ (compare Heb.
{...}). _Vau_ prefixed means “and;” _beth_ prefixed “in;” _kaph_
prefixed “as;” _lamed_ prefixed “of” or “to;” _’al_ {...} is “over;”
_ki_ {...} “because;” _im_ {...}, “if;” _hazah_, _zath_, or _za_ {...},
“this” (compare Heb. {...}); and _ash_ {...}, “who, which” (compare
Heb. {...}). _Al_ {...} and _lo_ {...} are the negatives (compare Heb.
{...}). The redundant use of the personal pronoun with the relative is
common.
Still, Phoenician is not mere Hebrew; it has its own genius, its idioms,
its characteristics. The definite article, so constantly recurring in
Hebrew, is in Phoenician, comparatively speaking, rare. The quiescent
letters, which in Hebrew ordinarily accompany the long vowels, are in
Phoenician for the most part absent. The employment of the participle
for the definite tenses of the verb is much more common in Phoenician
than in Hebrew, and the Hebrew prefix _m_ is wanting. The ordinary
termination of feminine singular nouns is _-th_, not _-h_. Peculiar
forms occur, as _ash_ for _asher_, _’amath_ for _’am_ (“people”), _zan_
for _zah_ (“this”), &c. Words which in Hebrew are confined to poetry
pass among the Phoenicians into ordinary use, as _pha’al_ ({...}, Heb.
{...}), “to make,” which replaces the Hebrew {...}.[1311]
“It is strange,” says M. Renan, “that the people to which all antiquity
attributes the invention of writing, and which has, beyond all doubted,
transmitted it to the entire civilised world, has scarcely left us
any literature.”[1312] Certainly it is difficult to give the name
of literature either to the fragments of so-called Phoenician works
preserved to us in Greek translations, or to the epigraphic remains of
actual Phoenician writing which have come down to our day. The works
are two, and two only, viz. the pretended “Phoenician History” of
Sanchoniathon, and the “Periplus” of Hanno. Of the former, it is perhaps
sufficient to say that we have no evidence of its genuineness. Philo of
Byblus, who pretends that he translated it from a Phoenician original,
though possibly he had Phoenician blood in his veins, was a Greek in
language, in temperament, and in tone of thought, and belonged to the
Greece which is characterised by Juvenal as “Græcia mendax.” It is
impossible to believe that the Euemerism in which he indulges, and
which was evidently the motive of his work, sprang from the brain of
Sanchoniathon nine hundred years before Euemerus existed. One is tempted
to suspect that Sanchoniathan himself was a myth--an “idol of the cave,”
evolved out of the inner consciousness of Philo. Philo had a certain
knowledge of the Phoenician language, and of the Phoenician religious
system, but not more than he might have gained by personal communication
with the priests of Byblus and Aphaca, who maintained the old worship
in, and long after, his day. It is not clear that he drew his statements
from any ancient authorities, or from books at all. So far as the extant
fragments go, a smattering of the language, a very moderate acquaintance
with the religion, and a little imagination might readily have produced
them.
A few extracts from the remains must be given to justify this
judgement:--“The beginning of all things,” Philo says,[1313] “was a dark
and stormy air, or a dark air and a turbid chaos, resembling Erebus;
and these were at first unbounded, and for a long series of ages had
no limit. But after a time this wind became enamoured of its own first
principles, and an intimate union took place between them, a connection
which was called Desire {pothos}: and this was the beginning of the
creation of all things. But it (i.e. the Desire) had no consciousness of
its own creation: however, from its embrace with the wind was generated
Môt, which some call watery slime, and others putrescence of watery
secretion. And from this sprang all the seed of creation, and the
generation of the universe. And first there were certain animals without
sensation, from which intelligent animals were produced, and these were
called ‘Zopher-Sêmin,’ i.e. ‘beholders of the heavens;’ and they were
made in the shape of an egg, and from Môt shone forth the sun, and the
moon, and the lesser and the greater stars. And when the air began
to send forth light, by the conflagration of land and sea, winds were
produced, and clouds, and very great downpours, and effusions of the
heavenly waters. And when these were thus separated, and carried,
through the heat of the sun, out of their proper places, and all met
again in the air, and came into collision, there ensued thunderings
and lightnings; and through the rattle of the thunder, the intelligent
animals, above mentioned, were woke up, and, startled by the noise,
began to move about both in the sea and on the land, alike such as
were male and such as were female. All these things were found in the
cosmogony of Taaut (Thoth), and in his Commentaries, and were drawn from
his conjectures, and from the proofs which his intellect discovered, and
which he made clear to us.”
Again, “From the wind, Colpia, and his wife Bahu (Heb. {...}), which is
by interpretation ‘Night,’ were born Æon and Protogonus, mortal men so
named; of whom one, viz. Æon, discovered that life might be sustained by
the fruits of trees. Their immediate descendants were called Genos and
Genea, who lived in Phoenicia, and in time of drought stretched forth
their hands to heaven towards the sun; for him they regarded as the sole
Lord of Heaven, and called him Baal-samin, which means ‘Lord of Heaven’
in the Phoenician tongue, and is equivalent to Zeus in Greek. And from
Genos, son of Æon and Protogonus, were begotten mortal children, called
Phôs, and Pyr, and Phlox (i.e. Light, Fire, and Flame). These persons
invented the method of producing fire by rubbing two pieces of wood
together, and taught men to employ it. They begat sons of surprising
size and stature, whose names were given to the mountains whereof they
had obtained possession, viz. Casius, and Libanus, and Antilibanus, and
Brathy. From them were produced Memrumus and Hypsuranius, who took
their names from their mothers, women in those days yielding themselves
without shame to any man whom they happened to meet. Hypsuranius lived
at Tyre, and invented the art of building huts with reeds and rushes and
the papyrus plant. He quarrelled with his brother, Usôus, who was the
first to make clothing for the body out of the skins of the wild beasts
which he slew. On one occasion, when there was a great storm of rain
and wind, the trees in the neighbourhood of Tyre so rubbed against each
other that they took fire, and the whole forest was burnt; whereupon
Usôus took a tree, and having cleared it of its boughs, was the first
to venture on the sea in a boat. He also consecrated two pillars to Fire
and Wind, and worshipped them, and poured upon them the blood of the
animals which he took by hunting. And when the two brothers were dead,
those who remained alive consecrated rods to their memory, and continued
to worship the pillars, and to hold a festival in their honour year by
year.”[1314]
Once more--“It was the custom among the ancients, in times of great
calamity and danger, for the rulers of the city or nation to avert the
ruin of all by sacrificing to the avenging deities the best beloved of
their children as the price of redemption; and such as were thus devoted
were offered with mystic ceremonies. Kronus, therefore, who was called
El by the Phoenicians, and who, after his death, was deified and
attached to the planet which bears his name, having an only son by a
nymph of the country, who was called Anobret, took his son, whose name
was Ieoud, which means ‘only son’ in Phoenician, and when a great
danger from war impended over the land, adorned him with the ensigns
of royalty, and, having prepared an altar for the purpose, voluntarily
sacrificed him.”[1315]
It will be seen from these extracts that the literary value of Philo’s
work was exceedingly small. His style is complicated and confused;
his matter, for the most part, worthless, and his mixture of Greek,
Phoenician, and Egyptian etymologies absurd. If we were bound to believe
that he translated a real Phoenician original, and that that original
was a fair specimen of Phoenician literary talent, the only conclusion
to which we could come would be, that the literature of the nation was
beneath contempt.
But the “Periplus” of Hanno will lead us to modify this judgment. It is
so short a work that we venture to give it entire from the translation
of Falconer,[1316] with a few obvious corrections.
The voyage of Hanno, King of the Carthaginians, round the parts of Libya
beyond the Pillars of Hercules, which he deposited in the Temple of
Kronos.
“It was decreed by the Carthaginians that Hanno should undertake a
voyage beyond the Pillars of Hercules, and there found Liby-Phoenician
cities. He sailed accordingly with sixty ships of fifty oars each, and a
body of men and women, to the number of thirty thousand, and provisions,
and other necessaries.
“When we had weighed anchor, and passed the Pillars, and sailed
beyond them for two days, we founded the first city, which we named
Thymiaterium. Below it lay an extensive plain. Proceeding thence towards
the west, we came to Soloeis, a promontory of Libya thickly covered
with trees, where we erected a temple to Neptune (Poseidon), and again
proceeded for the space of half a day towards the east, until we arrived
at a lake lying not far from the sea, and filled with abundance of large
reeds. Here elephants and a great number of other wild animals were
feeding.
“Having passed the lake about a day’s sail, we founded cities near
the sea, called Caricon-Teichos, and Gytta, and Acra, and Melitta,
and Arambys. Thence we came to the great river Lixus, which flows from
Libya. On its banks the Lixitæ, a wandering tribe, were feeding flocks,
amongst whom we continued some time on friendly terms. Beyond the
Lixitæ dwelt the inhospitable Ethiopians, who pasture a wild country
intersected by large mountains, from which they say the river Lixus
flows. In the neighbourhood of the mountains lived the Troglodytes, men
of various appearances, whom the Lixitæ described as swifter in running
than horses. Having procured interpreters from them, we coasted along
a desert country towards the south for two days; and thence again
proceeded towards the east the course of a day. Here we found in the
recess of a certain bay a small island, having a circuit of five stadia,
where we settled a colony, and called it Cerne. We judged from our
voyage that this place lay in a direct line with Carthage; for the
length of our voyage from Carthage to the Pillars was equal to that
from the Pillars to Cerne. We then came to a cape, which we reached
by sailing up a large river called Chrete. The lake had three islands
larger than Cerne; from which, proceeding a day’s sail, we came to the
extremity of the lake. This was overhung by huge mountains, inhabited
by savage men, clothed in skins of wild beasts, who drove us away by
throwing stones, and hindered us from landing. Sailing thence, we came
to another river, that was deep and broad, and full of crocodiles and
river horses (hippopotami), whence returning back, we came again to
Cerne. Thence we sailed towards the south for twelve days, coasting
along the shore, the whole of which is inhabited by Ethiopians, who
would not wait our approach, but fled from us. Their language was
unintelligible, even to the Lixitæ who were with us. On the last day we
approached some large mountains covered with trees, the wood of which
was sweet-scented and variegated. Having sailed by these mountains for
two days, we came to an immense opening of the sea; on each side of
which, towards the continent, was a plain; from which we saw by night
fire arising at intervals, either more or less.
“Having taken in water there, we sailed forward during five days near
the land, until we came to a large bay, which our interpreter informed
us was called ‘the Western Horn.’ In this was a large island, and in the
island a salt-water lake, and in this another island, where, when we had
landed, we could discover nothing in the daytime except trees; but
in the night we saw many fires burning, and heard the sound of pipes,
cymbals, drums, and confused shouting. We were then afraid, and our
diviners ordered us to abandon the island. Sailing quickly away thence,
we passed by a country burning with fires and perfumes; and streams of
fire supplied thence fell into the sea. The country was untraversable
on account of the heat. So we sailed away quickly from there also, being
much terrified; and, passing on for four days, we observed at night a
country full of flames. In the middle was a lofty fire, larger than the
rest, which seemed to touch the stars. When day came, we discovered it
to be a huge hill, called ‘the Chariot of the Gods.’ On the third day
after our departure thence, after sailing by streams of fire, we arrived
at a bay, called ‘the Southern Horn;’ at the bottom of which lay an
island like the former one, having a lake, and in the lake another
island full of savage people, far the greater part of whom were women,
whose bodies were hairy, and whom our interpreters called ‘gorillæ.’
Though we pursued the men, we could not catch any of them; but all
escaped us, climbing over the precipices, and defending themselves
with stones. Three women were, however, taken; but they attacked their
conductors with their teeth and nails, and could not be prevailed upon
to accompany us. So we killed them, and flayed them, and brought their
skins with us to Carthage. We did not sail further on, our provisions
failing us.”
The style of this short work, though exceedingly simple and
inartificial, is not without its merits. It has the directness, the
perspicuity, and the liveliness of Cæsar’s Commentaries or of the Duke
of Wellington’s Despatches. Montesquieu[1317] says of it:--“Hanno’s
Voyage was written by the very man who performed it. His recital is
not mingled with ostentation. Great commanders write their actions with
simplicity, because they receive more honour from facts than words.”
If we may take the work as a specimen of the accounts which Phoenician
explorers commonly gave of their travels in unknown regions, we must
regard them as having set a pattern which modern travellers would do
well to follow. Hanno gives us facts, not speculations--the things which
he has observed, not those of which he has dreamt; and he delivers his
facts in the fewest possible words, and in the plainest possible way. He
does not cultivate flowers of rhetoric; he does not unduly spin out his
narrative. It is plain that he is especially bent on making his meaning
clear, and he succeeds in doing so.
The epigraphic literature of the Phoenicians, which M. Renan considers
to supply fairly well the almost complete loss of their books,[1318]
scarcely deserves to be so highly rated. It consists at present of
five or six moderately long, and some hundreds of exceedingly short,
inscriptions; the longer ones being, all of them, inscribed on stones,
the shorter on stones, vases, pateræ, gems, coins, and the like. The
longest of all is that engraved on the sarcophagus of Esmunazar, king of
Sidon, discovered near the modern Saida in the year 1855, and now in the
museum of the Louvre. This has a length of twenty-two long lines, and
contains 298 words.[1319] It is fairly legible throughout; and the sense
is, for the most part, fairly well ascertained, though the meaning of
some passages remains still more or less doubtful. The following is the
translation of M. Renan:--
“In the month of Bul (October), in the fourteenth year of the reign of
King Esmunazar, king of the Sidonians, son of King Tabnit, king of the
Sidonians, King Esmunazar, king of the Sidonians, spake, saying--I am
snatched away before my time, the child of a few days, the orphan son
of a widow; and lo! I am lying in this coffin, and in this tomb, in the
place which I have built. I adjure every royal personage and every
man whatsoever, that they open not this my chamber, and seek not for
treasures there, since there are here no treasures, and that they remove
not the coffin from my chamber, nor build over this my chamber any other
funeral chamber. Even if men speak to thee, listen not to their words;
since every royal personage and every other man who shall open this
funeral chamber, or remove the coffin from this my chamber, or build
anything over this chamber--may they have no funeral chamber with the
departed, nor be buried in tombs, nor have any son or descendant to
succeed to their place; but may the Holy Gods deliver them into the
hand of a mighty king who shall reign over them, and destroy the royal
personage or the man who shall open this my funeral chamber, or remove
this coffin, together with the offspring of the royal personage or other
man, and let them not have either root below, or any fruit above, or
glory among such as live beneath the sun. Since I am snatched away
before my time, the child of a few days, the orphan son of a widow, even
I.
“For I am Esmunazar, king of the Sidonians, the son of King Tabnit, king
of the Sidonians, and the grandson of Esmunazar, king of the Sidonians,
and my mother is Am-Ashtoreth, priestess of our lady Ashtoreth, the
queen, the daughter of King Esmunazar, king of the Sidonians--and it is
we who have built the temples of the gods, the temple of Ashtoreth in
Sidon on the shore of the sea, and have placed Ashtoreth in her temple
to glorify her; and we too have built the temple of Esmun, and set the
sacred grove, En Yidlal, in the mountain, and made him (Esmun) dwell
there to glorify him; and it is we who have built temples to the
[other] deities of the Sidonians, in Sidon on the shore of the sea,
as the temple of Baal-Sidon, and the temple of Asthoreth, who bears the
name of Baal. And for this cause has the Lord of Kings given us Dor and
Joppa, and the fertile cornlands which are in the plains of Sharon, as
a reward for the great things which I have done, and added them to the
boundaries of the land, that they may belong to the Sidonians for ever.
I adjure every royal personage, and every man whatsoever, that they open
not this my chamber, nor empty my chamber, nor build aught over this my
chamber, nor remove the coffin from this my chamber, lest the Holy Gods
deliver them up, and destroy the royal personage, or the men [who
shall do so], and their offspring for ever.”[1320]
The inscription on the tomb of Tabnit, Esmunazar’s father, found near
Beyrout in 1886, is shorter, but nearly to the same effect. It has been
thus translated:--“I, Tabnit, priest of Ashtoreth, and king of Sidon,
lying in this tomb, say--I adjure every man, when thou shalt come upon
this sepulchre, open not my chamber, and trouble me not, for there is
not with me aught of silver, nor is there with me aught of gold, there
is not with me anything whatever of spoil, but only I myself who lie in
this sepulchre. Open not my chamber, and trouble me not; for it would be
an abomination in the sight of Ashtoreth to do such an act. And if thou
shouldest open my chamber, and trouble me, mayest thou have no
posterity all thy life under the sun, and no resting-place with the
departed.”[1321]
A stelé of a Byblian king, Jehavmelek, probably somewhat more ancient
than these,[1322] bears an inscription of a different kind, since it
is attached to a votive offering and not to a sepulchre. The king
represents himself in a bas-relief as making an offering to Beltis or
Ashtoreth, and then appends an epigraph, which runs to fifteen long
lines,[1323] and is to the following effect:--“I am Jehavmelek, king of
Gebal, the son of Jahar-baal, and the grandson of Adom-melek, king of
Gebal, whom lady Beltis of Gebal has made king of Gebal; and I invoke
my lady Beltis of Gebal, because she has heard my voice. And I have made
for my lady Beltis of Gebal the brazen altar which is in this temple,
and the golden carving which is in front of this my carving, and the
uræus of gold which is in the middle of the stone over the golden
carving. And I have made this portico, with its columns, and the
capitals that are upon the columns, and the roof of the temple also,
I, Jehavmelek, king of Gebal, have made for my lady Beltis of Gebal,
because, whenever I have invoked my lady Beltis of Gebal, she has heard
my voice, and been good to me. May Beltis of Gebal bless Jehavmelek,
king of Gebal, and grant him life, and prolong his days and his years
over Gebal, because he is a just king; and may the lady Beltis of Gebal
obtain him favour in the sight of the Gods, and in the sight of the
people of foreign lands, for ever! Every royal personage and every other
man who shall make additions to this altar, or to this golden carving,
or to this portico, I, Jehavmelek, king of Gebal, set may face against
him who shall so do, and I pray my lady Beltis of Gebal to destroy that
man, whoever he be, and his seed after him.”[1324]
The inscription of Marseilles, if it had been entire, would have been
as valuable and interesting as any of these; but, unfortunately, its
twenty-one lines are in every case incomplete, being broken off, or else
illegible, towards the left. It appears to have been a decree emanating
from the authorities of Carthage, and prescribing the amount of the
payments to be made in connection with the sacrifices and officials of
a temple of Baal which may have existed either at Marseilles or at
Carthage itself. To translate it is impossible without a vast amount of
conjecture; but M. Renan’s version[1325] seems to deserve a place in the
present collection.
INSCRIPTION OF MARSEILLES
“The temple of Baal . . . Account of the payments fixed by those set
over the payments, in the time of our lords, Halats-Baal, the Suffes,
the son of Abd-Tanith, the son of Abd-Esmun, and of Halats-Baal, the
Suffes, the son of Abd-Esmun, the son of Halts-Baal, and of their
colleagues:--For an ox, whether as burnt sacrifice, or expiatory
offering, or thank offering, to the priests [shall be given] ten
[shekels] of silver on account of each; and, if it be a burnt
sacrifice, they shall have besides this payment three hundred weight of
the flesh; and if the sacrifice be expiatory, [they shall have] the
fat and the additions, and the offerer of the sacrifice shall have the
skin, and the entrails, and the feet, and the rest of the flesh. For a
calf without horns and entire, or for a ram, whether as burnt sacrifice,
or expiatory offering, or thank offering, to the priests [shall be
given] five [shekels] of silver on account of each; and if it be a
burnt sacrifice, they shall have, besides this payment, a hundred weight
and a half of the flesh; and if the sacrifice be expiatory, they shall
have the fat and the additions, and the skin, and entrails, and
feet, and the rest of the flesh shall be given to the offerer of the
sacrifice. For a he-goat, or a she-goat, whether as a burnt sacrifice,
or expiatory offering, or thank offering, to the priests [shall be
given] one [shekel] and two _zers_ of silver on account of each; and
if it be an expiatory sacrifice, they shall have, besides this payment,
the fat and the additions; and the skin, and entrails, and feet, and the
rest of the flesh shall be given to the offerer of the sacrifice. For a
sheep, or a kid, or a fawn (?), whether as burnt sacrifice, or
expiatory offering, or thank offering, to the priests [shall be given]
three-fourths of a shekel of silver and . . . _zers_, on account of
each; and if it be an expiatory sacrifice, they shall have, besides this
payment, the fat and the additions; and the skin, and the entrails, and
the feet, and the rest of the flesh [13shall be given] to the offerer of
the sacrifice. For a bird, domestic or wild, whether as thank offering,
or for augury, or for divination, to the priests [shall be given]
three-fourths of a shekel of silver and two _zers_ on account of each,
and the flesh shall be for the offerer of the sacrifice. For a bird,
or for the holy first-fruits, or for the offering of a cake, or for an
offering of oil, to the priests [shall be given] ten _zers_ of silver
on account of each, and . . . In every expiatory sacrifice that shall
be offered before the deities, to the priests [shall be given] the fat
and the additions, and in the sacrifice of . . . For a meat offering, or
for milk, or for fat, or for any sacrifice which any man shall offer
as an oblation, to the priests [there shall be given] . . . For every
offering that a man shall offer who is poor in sheep, or poor in birds,
[there shall be given] to the priests nothing at all. Every native,
and every inhabitant, and every feaster at the table of the gods, and
all the men who sacrifice . . . those men shall make a payment for every
sacrifice, according to that which is prescribed in [this] writing . . .
Every payment which is not prescribed in this tablet shall be made
proportionally to the rate fixed by those set over the payments in the
time of our lords, Halats-Baal, the son of Abd-Tanith, and Halats-Baal,
the son of Abd-Esmun, and their colleagues. Every priest who takes a
payment beyond the amount prescribed in this tablet shall be fined
. . . And every offerer of a sacrifice who shall not pay [the amount]
prescribed, beyond the payment which [is here fixed, he shall
pay] . . .”
Of the shorter inscriptions of the Phoenicians, by far the greater
number were attached either to votive offerings or to tombs. Some
hundreds have been found of both classes, but they are almost wholly
without literary merit, being bald and jejune in the extreme, and
presenting little variety. The depositor of a votive offering usually
begins by mentioning the name and title, or titles, of the deity to whom
he dedicates it. Then he appends his own name, with the names of his
father and grandfather. Occasionally, but rarely, he describes his
offering, and states the year in which it was set up. Finally, he asks
the deity to bless him. The following are examples:--
INSCRIPTION OF UM-EL-AWAMID
“To the lord Baal-Shamaïm, [the vow] which was vowed by Abdelim,
son of Mattan, son of Abdelim, son of Baal-Shomar, of the district of
Laodicea. This gateway and doors did I make in fulfilment of it. I built
it in the 180th year of the Lord of Kings, and in the 143rd year of the
people of Tyre, that it might be to me a memorial and for a good name
beneath the feet of my lord, Baal-Shamaïm, for ever. May he bless
me!”[1326]
INSCRIPTION ON A CIPPUS FROM CARTHAGE
“To the lady Tanith, and to our master, the lord Baal-Hammon; the
offerer is Abd-Melkarth, the Suffes, son of Abd-Melkarth, son of
Hanno.”[1327]
INSCRIPTION ON A CIPPUS FOUND IN MALTA
“To our lord Melkarth, the lord of Tyre. The offerer is thy servant,
Abd-Osiri, and my brother, Osiri-Shomar, both [of us] sons of
Osiri-Shomar, the son of Abd-Osiri. In hearing their voice, may he bless
them.”[1328]
INSCRIPTION ON A MARBLE ALTAR, BROUGHT FROM LARNAKA
“On the sixth day of the month Bul, in the twenty-first year of King
Pumi-yitten, king of Citium and Idalium, and Tamasus, son of King
Melek-yitten, king of Citium and Idalium, this altar and these two lions
were given by Bodo, priest of Reseph-hets, son of Yakun-shalam, son of
Esmunadon, to his lord Reseph-hets. May he bless [him].”[1329]
INSCRIPTION ON A MARBLE TABLET FOUND IN CYPRUS
“On the seventh day of the month . . . in the thirty-first year of
the Lord of Kings, Ptolemæus, son of Ptolemæus . . . which was the
fifty-seventh year of the Citians, when Amarat-Osiri, daughter of . . .
son of Abd-Susim, of Gad’ath, was _canephora_ of Asinoë Philadelphus,
these statues were set up by Bathshalun, daughter of Maryichai, son
of Esmunadon, to the memory of his grandsons, Esmunadon, Shallum, and
Abd-Reseph, the three sons of Maryichai, son of Esmunadon, according to
the vow which their father, Maryichai, vowed, when he was still alive,
to their lord, Reseph-Mikal. May he bless them!”[1330]
There is a little more variety in the inscriptions on tombstones. The
great majority, indeed, are extremely curt and dry, containing scarcely
anything beyond the name of the person who is buried in the tomb,
or that together with the name of the person by whom the monument is
erected; e.g. “To Athad, the daughter of Abd-Esmun, the Suffes, and wife
of Ger-Melkarth, the son of Ben-hodesh, the son of Esmunazar”[1331];
or “This monument I, Menahem, grandson of Abd-Esmun, have erected to my
father, Abd-Shamash, son of Abd-Esmun”[1332]; or “I, Abd-Osiri, the son
of Abd-Susim, the son of Hur, have erected this monument, while I am
still alive, to myself, and to my wife, Ammat-Ashtoreth, daughter of
Taam, son of Abd-melek, [and have placed it] over the chamber of my
tomb, in perpetuity.”[1333] But, occasionally, we get a glimpse, beyond
the mere dry facts, into the region of thought; as where the erector of
a monument appends to the name of one, whom we may suppose to have been
a miser, the remark, that “the reward of him who heaps up riches is
contempt;”[1334] or where one who entertains the hope that his friend
is happier in another world than he was upon earth, thus expresses
himself--“In memory of Esmun. After rain, the sun shines forth;”[1335]
or, again, where domestic affection shows itself in the declaration
concerning the departed--“When he entered into the house that is so full
[of guests], there was grief for the memory of the sage, the man that
was hard as adamant, that bore calamities of every sort, that was
a widower through the death of my mother, that was like a pellucid
fountain, and had a name pure from crime. Erected in affection by me his
son to my father.”[1336]
With respect to the extent and range of the Phoenician book literature,
the little that can be gathered from the notices remaining to us in the
Greek and Roman writers is the following. In Phoenicia Proper there were
historical writers at least from the time of Hiram, the contemporary of
David, who wrote the annals of their country in a curt dry form somewhat
resembling that of Kings and Chronicles.[1337] The names of the kings
and the length of their reigns were carefully recorded, together with
some of the more remarkable events belonging to each reign; but there
was no attempt at the philosophy of history, nor at the graces of
composition. In some places, especially at Sidon, philosophy and science
were to a certain extent cultivated. Mochus, a Sidonian, wrote a work on
the atomic theory at a very early date, though scarcely, as Posidonius
maintained,[1338] one anterior to the Trojan war. Later on, the Sidonian
school specially affected astronomy and arithmetic, in which they made
so much progress that the Greeks acknowledged themselves their debtors
in those branches of knowledge.[1339] It is highly probable, though not
exactly capable of proof, that the Tyrian navigators from a very remote
period embodied in short works the observations which they made in their
voyages, on the geography, hydrography, ethology, and natural history
of the counties, which were visited by them. Hanno’s “Periplus” may have
been composed on a model of these earlier treatises, which at a later
date furnished materials to Marinus for his great work on geography. It
was, however, in the Phoenician colony of Carthage that authorship was
taken up with most spirit and success. Hiempsal, Hanno, Mago, Hamilcar,
and others, composed works, which the Romans valued highly, on the
history, geography, and “origines” of Africa, and also upon practical
agriculture.[1340] Mago and Hamilcar were regarded as the best
authorities on the latter subject both by the Greeks and Romans, and
were followed, among the Greeks by Mnaseas and Paxamus,[1341] among the
Romans by Varro and Columella.[1342] So highly was the work of Mago,
which ran to twenty-eight books, esteemed, that, on the taking
of Carthage, it was translated into Latin by order of the Roman
Senate.[1343] After the fall of Carthage, Tyre and Sidon once more
became seats of learning; but the Phoenician language was discarded, and
Greek adopted in its place. The Tyrian, Sidonian, Byblian and Berytian
authors, of whom we hear, bear Greek names:[1344] and it is impossible
to say whether they belonged, in any true sense, to the Phoenician race.
Philo of Byblus and Marinus of Tyre are the only two authors of this
later period who held to Phoenician traditions, and, presumably,
conveyed on to later ages Phoenician ideas and accumulations. If neither
literature nor science gained much from the work of the former, that of
the latter had considerable value, and, as the basis of the great
work of Ptolemy, must ever hold an honourable place in the history of
geographical progress.