not making an unqualified submission to the demands preferred by
Alexander,[14370] but the reproach scarcely appears to be deserved.
They had on previous occasions resisted for years the entire power
of Assyria, and of Babylon; they naturally deemed themselves only
assailable by sea; their fortifications were of immense strength; and
they possessed a navy much superior to any of which Alexander could
boast at the time when he threatened them. Their own vessels were eighty
in number; those of their kinsmen upon the continent were likewise
eighty; Cyprus, which for centuries had been closely allied with them,
and which was more than half Phoenician in blood, could furnish a
hundred and twenty; Carthage, if she chose, could send to their aid,
without any difficulty, as many as two hundred.[14371] Alexander had
never been able to collect from the Greek states which owned his sway
a fleet of more than one hundred and sixty sail; and, having disbanded
this fleet, he could not readily have mustered from the cities and
countries accessible to him, exclusive of Cyprus and Phoenicia, so many
as a hundred.[14372] The Tyrians, when they took their resolution to
oppose Alexander, had a right to expect that their kindred would either
assist them, or at any rate not serve against them, and that thus they
would be sure to maintain their supremacy at sea. As for Alexander’s
design to join the island Tyre to the continent by means of a mole, they
cannot have had the slightest suspicion of it, since no work of the
kind had ever previously been accomplished, or even attempted; for
the demonstration of Xerxes against Salamis was not seriously
intended.[14373] They naturally counted on the struggle being entirely
by sea, and may well have thought that on their own element they would
not be worsted. Even if the continental towns forsook them and went over
to the enemy, why might they not do as they had done in Shalmaneser’s
time, defeat their unnatural countrymen, and retain their naval
supremacy? Moreover, if they made a gallant fight, might not Persia be
expected to second their efforts? Would she not attack Alexander from
the flanks of Lebanon, intercept his supplies, cut off his foragers, and
make his position untenable; the Tyrians could scarcely anticipate that
Persia would sit with folded hands, a calm spectator of a seven months’
siege, and do absolutely nothing.
Having determined on resistance to the demands of Alexander, the Tyrians
lost no time in placing their city in a position to resist attack. They
summoned their king, Azemilcus, from the Persian fleet, and required him
to hasten home with the entire squadron which he commanded.[14374]
They collected triremes and lighter vessels from various quarters. They
distributed along the walls of the city upon every side a number of
engines of war, constructed to hurl darts and stones, and amply provided
them with missiles.[14375] The skilled workmen and engineers resident
in the town were called upon not merely to furnish additional engines
of the old type, but to exercise their ingenuity in devising new and
unheard of structures.[14376] They armed all the young and vigorous
among the people, and appointed them their several stations at the
walls. Finally, to diminish the number of mouths to be fed, and to save
themselves from distracting cares, they sent away to Carthage a number
of their aged men, their women, and their children, who were readily
received and supported by the rich and friendly colonists.[14377]
Meantime Alexander had taken his resolution. Either recollecting what
Xerxes had threatened to do at Salamis, or prompted merely by his own
inventive genius, he determined on the construction of a great mole, or
embankment, which should be carried out from the Asiatic mainland across
the half-mile of channel to the very walls of the recalcitrant city,
and should thus join the island to the Syrian shore. The width of the
embankment he fixed at two plethra, or nearly seventy yards.[14378]
Material for the construction was abundant. The great city of Palæ-Tyrus
was close at hand, partly in ruins, and with many of the houses deserted
by their inhabitants. Its walls would furnish abundance of stone,
mortar, and rubble. Behind Palæ-Tyrus lay the flanks of Lebanon,
cultivated in orchards, while beyond were its dense and inexhaustible
forests of fir, pine, and cedar. Human labour could be obtained to
almost any extent, for the neighbourhood was populous, and Alexander’s
authority acknowledged by all. Accordingly the work, once commenced, for
a while made fair progress. Piles were cut in the mountain, which
were driven with much ease into the soft mud of the channel, which was
shallow near the shore,[14379] and completely under the control of the
Macedonians, since the Tyrian vessels could not approach it for fear of
sticking in the ooze. Between the piles, towards the edge of the mole,
were sunk stones, trunks of trees, and material of the more solid
character, while the central part was filled up with rubble and rubbish
of every sort and kind. Still, the operation was toilsome and tedious,
even from the first, while the further that the mole was advanced into
the sea, the more difficult and dangerous became its construction. The
channel deepened gradually from a few feet towards the shore to eighteen
or twenty,[14380] as it approached the island. The Tyrians in their
vessels were soon able to act. In small boats at first, and afterwards
in their triremes, they attacked and annoyed the workmen, perpetually
hindered their work, and occasionally destroyed portions of it.[14381]
Damage was also inflicted by the wind and waves; and the rate of
progress became, in consequence, exceedingly slow. A strong current set
through the channel, and this was continually working its way among
the interstices of the mole, washing holes in its sides and face, and
loosening the interior of the structure. When a storm arose, the surf
broke over the top of the work, and did even greater damage, carrying
portions of the outer casing into the sea.
To meet the assaults of the Tyrian ships upon the work, the Macedonians
constructed two movable towers, well protected against torches and
weapons by curtains made of raw hides,[14382] and advancing these upon
the surface of the mole to the points most threatened, discharged from
the engines which the towers contained darts and stones of a large size
against the Tyrian sailors. Thus protected, the workmen were able to
make sensible progress, and the Tyrians began to fear that, unless they
could destroy the towers, the mole would ere long be completed. For
the accomplishment of their purpose, they resolved to employ
a fire-ship.[14383] Selecting one of the largest of their
horse-transports, they stowed the hold with dry brushwood and other
combustible materials; and erecting on the prow two masters, each with
a projecting arm, attached to either a cauldron, filled with bitumen
and sulphur, and with every sort of material apt to kindle and nourish
flame. By loading the stern of the transport with stones of a large
size, they succeeded in depressing it and correspondingly elevating the
prow, which was thus prepared to glide over the smooth surface of the
mole and bring itself into contact with the towers. In the fore part
of the ship were deposited a quantity of torches, resin, and other
combustibles. Watching an opportunity when the wind blew strongly from
the seaward straight upon the mole, they towed the vessel at their best
speed in the direction of the towers, set it on fire, and then, loosing
their hawsers, allowed it to dash itself upon the work. The prow slid
over the top a certain distance and then stopped. The arms projecting
from the masts broke off at the sudden check,[14384] and scattered the
contents of the cauldrons around. The towers caught fire and were at
once in a blaze. The Macedonians found it impossible to extinguish the
flames, since the Tyrian triremes, drawing close to the mole, prevented
approach by flights of arrows and other missiles. “At the same time,
the full naval force of the city, both ships and little boats, was sent
forth to land men at once on all parts of the mole. So successful was
this attack, that all the Macedonian engines were burnt--the outer
woodwork which kept the mole together was torn up in many places--and
a large part of the structure came to pieces.”[14385] A heavy
sea, moreover, accompanied the gale of wind which had favoured the
conflagration, and penetrating the loosened work, carried the whole into
deep waters.[14386]
Alexander had now seriously to consider what course he should take.
Hitherto his attempt had proved an entire failure. Should he relinquish
it? To do so would be to acknowledge himself baffled and defeated, to
tarnish the prestige which he held so dear, and to cripple the plans
that he had formed against Persia. It was simply impossible
that Alexander, being the man he was, should so act. No--he must
persevere--he must confront and overcome his difficulties--he must
repair the damages that he had suffered, restore his lost works, and
carry them out on a larger scale, and with more skill than before. He
gave orders therefore for an enlargement and alteration of the mole,
which he no longer carried across the strait in a direct line, but
inclined to the south-west,[14387] so that it might meet the force of
the prevalent wind, instead of exposing its flank to the violent gusts.
He also commanded the construction of fresh towers and fresh engines,
stronger and more in number than the former ones.[14388] But this alone
would not, he felt, be enough. His designs had been frustrated hitherto
solely from the fact that the Tyrians were masters of the sea; and
it was plain to him that, so long as this state of things remained
unaltered, it was next to impossible that he should succeed. The great
desideratum--the one condition of success--was the possession of a
powerful fleet. Such a fleet must be either built or collected. Leaving
therefore the restoration of the mole and the engines to his generals,
Alexander went in person to Sidon, and there set himself to gather
together as large a fleet as he could. Most opportunely it happened
that, either shortly before Alexander’s arrival or immediately
afterwards, the ships of Sidon, Aradus, and Byblus, which had been
serving with the Persian naval force in the Ægean, had been required by
their respective commanders to proceed homewards, and, to the number of
eighty, had sailed into the harbour of Sidon.[14389] The kings had,
in fact, deserted the Persian cause on hearing that their cities had
submitted to Alexander, and readily placed their respective squadrons
at his disposal. Further contingents were received from other
quarters--from Rhodes ten triremes, from the seaports of Lycia the
same number, from Soli and Mallus three, from Macedonia a single
penteconter.[14390] The number of the vessels was thus brought up to one
hundred and four; but even with such a fleet it would have been rash to
engage the Tyrian navy; and Alexander would probably have had to build
an additional squadron had he not received, suddenly and unexpectedly,
the adhesion of the princes of Cyprus. Cyprus, being an island, was
as yet in no danger, and might have been expected at least to remain
neutral until the fate of Tyre was decided; but, for reasons that
history has not recorded, the petty kings of the island about this
time--some months after the battle of Issus--resolved to desert Persia,
to detach themselves wholly from Tyre, and to place their navy at
the disposal of the Macedonians.[14391] The number of their triremes
amounted to 120; and Alexander, having now under his command a fleet
of 224 sail, could no longer feel any doubt of being able to wrest the
supremacy at sea from the unfortunate Tyrians.
Accordingly, after allowing his ships a period of eleven days for
nautical practice, and placing on board a number of his bravest
soldiers,[14392] Alexander sailed out from Sidon at the head of his
entire fleet, and made straight for Tyre in order of battle. He himself
in person commanded the right wing, the post of danger, since it held
the open sea, and had under him the bulk of the Cyprian ships, with
their commanders. Pnytagoras of Salamis and Craterus led the left wing,
which was composed mainly of the vessels furnished by the Phoenician
towns upon the mainland, and held its course at no great distance from
the shore. The Tyrians, who had received no intelligence from without,
saw with astonishment the great fleet, nearly three times as large
as their own,[14393] bearing down upon them in orderly array, and
challenging them to the combat. They had not now the spirit of ancient
times, when no disparity of force dismayed them. Surprised and alarmed,
they resolved to decline a battle, to remain within their ports, and to
use their ships for blocking the entrances. Alexander, advancing from
the north, when he saw the mouth of the Sidonian harbour, which faced
northwards, strongly guarded, did not attempt to force it, but anchored
his vessels outside, and established a blockade, the maintenance of
which he entrusted to the Cyprian squadron. The next day he ordered the
Phoenician ships to proceed southwards, and similarly block and watch
the southern or Egyptian harbour.[14394] For himself, he landed upon
the mole, and pitching his tent near the south-western corner, there
established himself.[14395]
The mole had not advanced very much during his absence. Vast efforts had
been made to re-establish it, but they had not been attended with any
great success.[14396] Whole trees, torn up by the roots, and with their
branches still adhering to them, had been dragged to the water’s edge,
and then precipitated into the strait;[14397] a layer of stones and mud
had been placed upon them, to solidify them into a mass; on the top of
this other trees had been placed, and the former process repeated. But
the Tyrians had met the new tactics with new methods. They had employed
divers to attach hooks to the boughs where they projected into the sea,
and by sheer force had dragged the trees out from the superincumbent
mass, bringing down in this way large portions of the structure.[14398]
But with Alexander’s coming, and the retirement of the Tyrian fleet,
all this was altered. Alexander’s workmen were no longer impeded, except
from the town, and in a short time the mole was completed across the
channel and carried up to the very foot of the defences. The new towers,
which had replaced the burnt ones, were brought up close to the walls,
and plied the new machines which Cyprian and Phoenician engineers had
constructed for their new master.[14399] The battering of the wall
began. Engines moreover of a large size were placed on horse-transports
furnished by Sidon, and on the heavier and clumsier of the triremes, and
with these attacks were made upon the town in various places, all round
the circuit of the walls, which, if they did nothing else, served to
distract the attention of the defenders. To meet such assailants the
Tyrians had let down huge blocks of stone into the sea, which prevented
the approach of the ships, and hindered those on board from using the
battering ram. These blocks the Macedonians endeavoured to weigh up and
remove by means of cranes; but their vessels were too unsteady for the
purpose, whereupon they proceeded to anchor them. The Tyrians went out
in boats well protected, and passing under the stems and sterns of the
vessels, cut the cables, whereupon the Macedonians kept an armed watch
upon the cables in boats of their own, which the Tyrians did not venture
to attack. They were not, however, without resource even yet, since
they contrived still to cut the cables by means of divers. At last the
Macedonians bethought themselves of using chains for cables instead of
ropes; these could not be cut, and the result was that at length they
succeeded in dragging the stones away and obtaining access to the foot
of the walls wherever they pleased.[14400]
Under these circumstances, threatened on every side, and feeling almost
at the last gasp, the Tyrians resolved on a final desperate effort.
They would make a bold attempt to recover the command of the sea. As the
Macedonian fleet was divided, part watching the Sidonian and part the
Egyptian harbour, they could freely select to contend with which portion
they preferred. Their choice fell upon the Cyprian contingent, which
was stationed to the north of the mole, keeping guard on the “Portus
Sidonius.” This they determined to attack, and to take, if possible, by
surprise. Long previously they had spread sails along the mouth of
the harbour, to prevent their proceedings inside it from being
overlooked.[14401] They now prepared a select squadron of thirteen
ships--three of them quinqueremes, three quadriremes, and seven
triremes--and silently placing on board their best sailors and the best
and bravest of their men-at-arms, waited till the hour of noon, when the
Cyprian crews would be taking their mid-day meal, and Alexander might be
expected, according to his general habit, to have retired to his tent
on the opposite side of the mole. When noon came, still in deep silence,
they issued from the harbour in single file, each crew rowing gently
without noise or splash, or a word spoken, either by the boatswains
or by anyone else. In this way they came almost close to the Cyprians
without being perceived: then suddenly the boatswains gave out their
cry, and the men cheered, and all pulled as hard as they could, and with
splash and dash they drove their ships against the enemy’s, which were
inert, lying at anchor, some empty, others hurriedly taking their crews
on board. The ships of three Cyprian kings--Pnytagoras, king of Salamis,
Androcles, king of Amathus, and Pasicrates, king of Curium[14402]--were
at once run down and sunk.[14403] Many others were disabled; the rest
fled, pursued by the Tyrians, and sought to reach the shore. All would
probably have been lost, had not Alexander returned from his tent
earlier than usual, and witnessed the Tyrian attack. With his usual
promptitude, he at once formed his plan. As only a portion of the
Cyprian fleet had maintained the blockade, while the remainder of
their ships were lying off the north shore of the mole with their crews
disembarked, he set to work to man these, and sent them off, as each
was got ready, to station themselves at the mouth of the harbour, and
prevent any more of the Tyrian vessels from sallying forth. He then
hurried to the southern side of the mole, where the Greco-Phoenician
squadron kept guard, and manning a certain number of the vessels,[14404]
sailed with them round the western shore of the island into the northern
bay, where the Tyrians and the remnant of the Cyprian fleet were still
contending. Those in the city perceived the movement, and made every
effort to signal it to their sailors, but in vain. The noise and uproar
of the battle prevented them from hearing until it was too late. It was
not till Alexander had entered the northern bay that they understood,
and turned and fled, pursued by his ships, which captured or disabled
the greater number. The crews, however, and the men-at-arms, escaped,
since they threw themselves overboard, and easily swam into the
harbour.[14405]
This was the last attempt of the Tyrians by sea. They were now invested
on every side, and hopelessly shut up within their defences. Still,
however, they made a desperate resistance. On the side of the mole the
Macedonians, having brought up their towers and battering-ram close to
the wall, attacked it with much vigour, hurling against it great masses
of stone, and by constant flights of darts and arrows driving
the defenders from the battlements.[14406] At the same time the
battering-rams were actively plied, and every effort made to effect a
breach. But the Tyrians deadened the blows of the rams and the force
of the stones by letting down from the walls leathern bags filled with
sea-weed at the points assailed;[14407] while, by wheels which were set
in rapid motion, they intercepted the darts and javelins wherewith
they were attacked, and broke them or diverted them from their intended
courses.[14408] When boarding-bridges were thrown from the towers to the
top of the walls, and an attempt was made to pass troops into the
town across them, they flung grappling hooks among the soldiers on the
bridges, which caught in their bodies and lacerated them, or dragged
their shields from their hands, or sometimes hauled them bodily into the
air, and then dashed them against the wall or against the ground.[14409]
Further, they made ready masses of red-hot metal, and hurled them
against the towers and the scaling-parties.[14410] They also heated sand
over fires and poured it from the battlements on all who approached the
foot of the wall; this, penetrating between the armour and the skin,
inflicted such intolerable pain that the sufferers were forced to tear
off their coats of mail, whereupon they were easily transfixed by arrows
or long lances.[14411] With scythes they cut the ropes and thongs by
means of which the rams were worked;[14412] and at last, armed
with hatchets, they sprang from the battlements upon the Macedonian
boarding-bridges, and in a hand-to-hand combat defeated and drove back
their assailants.[14413] Finally, when, despite of all their efforts,
the outer wall began to give way, they constructed an inner wall to take
its place, broader and stronger than the other.[14414]
Alexander, after a time, became convinced that his endeavours to take
the city from the mole were hopeless, and turned his attention to the
sea defences, north and south of the mole, which were far less strong
than those which he had hitherto been attacking.[14415] He placed his
best engines and his boarding-bridges upon ships, and proceeded to
batter the sea walls in various places. On the south side, near the
Egyptian harbour, he found a weak place, and concentrating his efforts
upon it, he succeeded in effecting a large breach.[14416] He then gave
orders for a general assault.[14417] The two fleets were commanded to
force simultaneously the entrances to the two harbours; other vessels
to make demonstrations against the walls at all approachable points; the
army collected on the mole to renew its assaults; while he himself,
with his trustiest soldiers, delivered the main attack at the southern
breach.[14418] Two vessels were selected for the purpose. On one, which
was that of Coenus, he embarked a portion of the phalanx; on the
other, which was commanded by Admetus, he placed his bodyguard, himself
accompanying it. The struggle was short when once the boarding-bridges
were thrown across and rested on the battered wall. Fighting under the
eye of their king, the Macedonians carried all before them, though not
without important losses. Admetus himself, who was the first to step
on to the wall, received a spear thrust, and was slain.[14419] But the
soldiers who were following close behind him maintained their footing,
and in a little time got possession of several towers, with the spaces
between them. Alexander was among the foremost of those who mounted the
breach,[14420] and was for a while hotly engaged in a hand-to-hand fight
with the enemy. When those who resisted him were slain or driven off,
he directed his troops to seize the royal palace, which abutted on the
southern wall, and through it make their entrance into the town.[14421]
Meanwhile, the Greco-Phoenician fleet on the south side of the mole had
burst the boom and other obstacles by which the Egyptian harbour was
closed, and, attacking the ships within, had disabled some, and driven
the rest ashore, thus gaining possession of the southern port and a
ready access to the adjacent portion of the city.[14422] The Cyprians,
moreover, on the north, had forced their way into the Sidonian harbour,
which had no boom, and obtained an entrance into the town on that
quarter.[14423] The defences were broken through in three places, and
it might have been expected that resistance would have ceased. But the
gallant defenders still would not yield. A large body assembled at the
Agenorium, or temple of Agenor, and there made a determined stand, which
continued till Alexander himself attacked them with his bodyguard, and
slew almost the entire number. Others, mounting upon the roofs of the
houses, flung down stones and missiles of all kinds upon the Macedonians
in the street. A portion shut themselves up in their homes and perished
by their own hands. In the streets and squares there was a terrible
carnage. The Macedonians were infuriated by the length of the siege, the
stubbornness of the resistance, and the fact that the Tyrians had in the
course of the siege publicly executed, probably by way of sacrifice, a
number of their prisoners upon the walls. Those who died with arms in
their hands are reckoned at eight thousand;[14424] two thousand more,
who had been made prisoners, were barbarously crucified by command of
Alexander round the walls of the city.[14425] None of the adult free
males were spared, except the few who had taken refuge with Azemilcus
the king in the temple of Melkarth, which Alexander professed greatly
to revere, and a certain number whom the Sidonians, touched at last with
pity, concealed on board their triremes. The women, the children, and
the slaves, to the number of thirty thousand,[14426] were sold to the
highest bidder.
Having worked his will, and struck terror, as he hoped, into the hearts
of all who might be thinking of resisting him, Alexander concluded the
Tyrian episode of his career by a religious ceremony.[14427] Entering
the city from the mole in a grand procession, accompanied by his entire
force of soldiers, fully armed and arrayed, while his fleet also played
its part in the scene, he proceeded to the temple of Melkarth in the
middle of the town, and offered his much desired sacrifice to Hercules.
A gymnastic contest and a torch race formed a portion of the display.
To commemorate his victory, he dedicated and left in the temple the
battering-ram which had made the first impression on the southern wall,
together with a Tyrian vessel, used in the service of the god, which he
had captured when he bore down upon the city from Sidon with his fleet.
Over the charred and half-ruined remnants of the city, into which he
had introduced a certain number of colonists, chiefly Carians,[14428]
he placed as ruler a member of a decayed branch of the royal family, a
certain Abd-elonim, whom the Greeks called Ballonymos.[14429]
7. Phoenicia under the Greeks (B.C. 323-65)
The Phoenicians faithful subjects of Alexander--At his death
Phoenicia falls, first to Laomedon, then to Ptolemy Lagi--Is
held by the Ptolemies for seventy years--Passes willingly,
B.C. 198, under the Seleucidæ--Relations with the Seleucid
princes and with the Jews--Hellenisation of Phoenicia--
Continued devotion of the Phoenicians generally to trade and
commerce--Material prosperity of Phoenicia.
Phoenicia continued faithful to Alexander during the remainder of his
career. Phoenician vessels were sent across the Ægean to the coast
of the Peloponnese to maintain the Macedonian interest in that
quarter.[14430] Large numbers of the mercantile class accompanied the
march of his army for the purposes of traffic. A portion of these, when
Alexander reached the Hydaspes and determined to sail down the course of
the Indus to the sea, were drafted into the vessels which he caused to
be built,[14431] descended the river, and accompanied Nearchus in his
voyage from Patala to the Persian Gulf. Others still remained with the
land force, and marched with Alexander himself across the frightful
deserts of Beloochistan, where they collected the nard and myrrh, which
were almost its only products, and which were produced in such abundance
as to scent the entire region.[14432] On Alexander’s return to Babylon,
Phoenicia was required to supply him with additional vessels, and
readily complied with the demand. A fleet of forty-eight ships--two
of them quinqueremes, four quadriremes, twelve triremes, and thirty
pentaconters, or fifty-oared galleys--was constructed on the Phoenician
coast, carried in fragments to Thapsacus on the Euphrates, and there
put together and launched on the stream of the Euphrates, down which it
sailed to Babylon.[14433] Seafaring men from Phoenicia and Syria were at
the same time enlisted in considerable numbers, and brought to Alexander
at his new capital to man the ships which he was building there, and
also to supply colonists for the coasts of the Persian Gulf and the
islands scattered over its surface.[14434] Alexander, among his many
projects, nourished an intention of adding to his dominions, at any
rate, the seaboard of Arabia, and understood that for this purpose
he must establish in the Persian Gulf a great naval power, such as
Phoenicia alone out of all the countries under his dominion was able
to furnish. His untimely death brought all these schemes to an end, and
plunged the East into a sea of troubles.
In the division of Alexander’s empire, which followed upon his death,
Phoenicia was at first assigned, together with Syria, to Laemedon,
and the two formed together a separate satrapy.[14435] But, after the
arrangement of Triparadisus (B.C. 320), Ptolemy Lagi almost immediately
attacked Laemedon, dispossessed him of his government, and attached it
to his own satrapy of Egypt.[14436] Six years later (B.C. 314),
attacked in his turn by Antigonus, Ptolemy was forced to relinquish his
conquests,[14437] none of which offered much resistance excepting
Tyre. Tyre, though no more than eighteen years had elapsed since its
desolation by Alexander, had, like the fabled phoenix, risen again from
its ruins, and through the recuperative energy of commerce had attained
almost to its previous wealth and prosperity.[14438] Its walls had been
repaired, and it was defended by its Egyptian garrison with pertinacity.
Antigonus, who was master of the Phoenician mainland, established
dockyards at Sidon, Byblus, and Tripolis, set eight thousand sawyers and
labourers to cut down timber in Lebanon, and called upon the kings
of the coast towns to build him a fleet with the least possible
delay.[14439] His orders were carried out, and Tyre was blockaded by sea
and land for the space of fifteen months, when the provisions failed and
the town was forced to surrender itself.[14440] The garrison marched out
with the honours of war, and Phoenicia became an appendage of the empire
(for such it was) of Antigonus.
From Antigonus Phoenicia passed to his son Demetrius, who maintained his
hold on it, with some vicissitudes of fortune, till B.C. 287, when it
once more passed under the dominion of Ptolemy Lagi.[14441] From
this time it was an Egyptian dependency for nearly seventy years,
and flourished commercially, if it not distinguish itself by warlike
exploits. The early Ptolemies were mild and wise rulers. They encouraged
commerce, literature, and art. So far as was possible they protected
their dominions from external attack, put down brigandage, and ruled
with equity and moderation. It was not until the fourth prince of the
house of Lagus, Philopator, mounted the throne (B.C. 222) that the
character of their rule changed for the worse, and their subjects began
to have reason to complain of them. The weakness and profligacy of
Philopater[14442] tempted Antiochus III. to assume the aggressive, and
to disturb the peace which had now for some time subsisted between
Syria and Egypt, the Lagidæ and the Seleucidæ. In B.C. 219 he drove the
Egyptians out of Seleucia, the port of Antioch,[14443] and being joined
by Theodotus, the Egyptian governor of the Coelesyrian province, invaded
that country and Phoenicia, took possession of Tyre and Accho, which
was now called Ptolemaïs, and threatened Egypt with subjugation.[14444]
Phoenicia once more became the battle-field between two great powers,
and for the next twenty years the cities were frequently taken and
re-taken. At last, in B.C. 198, by the victory of Antiochus over
Scopas,[14445] and the surrender of Sidon, Phoenicia passed, with
Coelesyria, into the permanent possession of the Seleucidæ, and, though
frequently reclaimed by Egypt, was never recovered.
The change of rulers was, on the whole, in consonance with the wishes
and feelings of the Phoenicians. Though Alexandria may not have been
founded with the definite intention of depressing Tyre, and raising
up a commercial rival to her on the southern shore of the
Mediterranean;[14446] yet the advantages of the situation, and the
interests of the Lagid princes, constituted her in a short time an
actual rival, and an object of Phoenician jealousy. Phoenicia had been
from a remote antiquity[14447] down to the time of Alexander, the main,
if not the sole, dispenser of Egyptian products to Syria, Asia Minor,
and Europe. With the foundation of Alexandria this traffic passed out of
her hands. It may be true that what she lost in this way was “more than
compensated by the new channels of eastern traffic which Alexander’s
conquests opened to her, by the security given to commercial intercourse
by the establishment of a Greek monarchy in the ancient dominions of the
Persian kings, and by the closer union which now prevailed between all
parts of the civilised world.”[14448] But the balance of advantage and
disadvantage does not even now always reconcile traders to a definite
and tangible loss; and in the ruder times of which we are writing it
was not to be expected that arguments of so refined and recondite a
character should be very sensibly felt. Tyre and Sidon recognised in
Alexandria a rival from the first, and grew more and more jealous of her
as time went on. She monopolised the trade in Egyptian commodities from
her foundation. In a short time she drew to herself, not only the
direct Egyptian traffic, but that which her rulers diverted from other
quarters, and drew to Egypt by the construction of harbours, and roads
with stations and watering places.[14449] Much of the wealth that had
previously flowed into Phoenicia was, in point of fact, diverted to
Egypt, and especially to Alexandria, by the judicious arrangements of
the earlier Lagid princes. Phoenicia, therefore, in attaching herself to
the Seleucidæ, felt that she was avenging a wrong, and though materially
she might not be the gainer, was gratified by the change in her
position.
The Seleucid princes on their part regarded the Phoenicians with
favour, and made a point of conciliating their affections by personal
intercourse with them, and by the grant of privileges. At the
quinquennial festival instituted by Alexander ere he quitted Tyre, which
was celebrated in the Greek fashion with gymnastic and musical contests,
the Syrian kings were often present in person, and took part in the
festivities.[14450] They seem also to have visited the principal cities
at other times, and to have held their court in them for many days
together.[14451] With their consent and permission, the towns severally
issued their own coins, which bore commonly legends both in Greek and
in Phoenician, and had sometimes Greek, sometimes Phoenician
emblems.[14452] Both Aradus and Tyre were allowed the privilege of being
asylums,[14453] from which political refugees could not be demanded by
the sovereign.
The Phoenicians in return served zealously on board the Syro-Macedonian
fleet, and showed their masters all due respect and honour.[14454] They
were not afraid, however, of asserting an independence of thought and
judgment, even in matters where the kings were personally concerned. On
one occasion, when Antiochus Epiphanes was holding his court at Tyre, a
cause of the greatest importance was brought before him for decision by
the authorities at Jerusalem. The high-priest of the time, Menelaus,
who had bought the office from the Syrian king, was accused of having
plundered the Temple of a number of its holy vessels, and of having
sold them for his own private advantage. The Sanhedrim, who prosecuted
Menelaus, sent three representatives to Tyre, to conduct the case, and
press the charges against him. The evidence was so clear that the High
Priest saw no chance of an acquittal, except by private interest. He
therefore bribed an influential courtier, named Ptolemy, the son of a
certain Dorymenes, to intercede with Antiochus on his behalf, and,
if possible, obtain his acquittal. The affair was not one of much
difficulty. Justice was commonly bought and sold at the Syro-Macedonian
Court, and Antiochus readily came into the views of Ptolemy, and
pronounced the High Priest innocent. He thought, however, that in so
grave a matter some one must be punished, and, as he had acquitted
Menelaus, he could only condemn his accusers. These unfortunates
suffered death at his hands, whereon the Tyrians, compassionating their
fate, and to mark their sense of the iniquity of the sentence, decreed
to give them an honourable burial. The historian who relates the
circumstance evidently feels that it was a bold and courageous act, very
creditable to the Tyrian people.[14455]
It is not always, however, that we can justly praise the conduct of
the Phoenicians at this period. Within six years of the time when the
Tyrians showed themselves at once so courageous and so compassionate,
the nation generally was guilty of complicity in a most unjust and
iniquitous design. Epiphanes, having driven the Jews into rebellion by
a most cruel religious persecution, and having more than once suffered
defeat at their hands, resolved to revenge himself by utterly destroying
the people which had provoked his resentment.[14456] Called away to
the eastern provinces by a pressing need, he left instructions with his
general, Lysias, to invade Judæa with an overwhelming force, and, after
crushing all resistance, to sell the surviving population--men, women,
and children--for slaves. Lysias, in B.C. 165, marched into Judæa,
accompanied by a large army, with the full intention of carrying out to
the letter his master’s commands. In order to attract purchasers for the
multitude whom he would have to sell, he made proclamation that the rate
of sale should be a talent for ninety, or less than 3l. a head,[14457]
while at the same he invited the attendance of the merchants from all
“the cities of the sea-coast,” who must have been mainly, if not wholly,
Phoenicians. The temptation was greater than Phoenician virtue could
resist. The historian tells us that “the merchants of the country,
hearing the fame of the Syrians, took silver and gold very much, with
servants, and came into the Syrian camp to buy the children of Israel
for money.”[14458] The result was a well-deserved disappointment. The
Syrian army suffered complete defeat at the hands of the Jews, and had
to beat a hasty retreat; the merchants barely escaped with their lives.
As for the money which they had brought with them for the purchase of
the captives, it fell into the hands of the victorious Jews, and formed
no inconsiderable part of the booty which rewarded their valour.[14459]
After this, we hear but little of any separate action on the part of
the Phoenicians, or of any Phoenician city, during the Seleucid period.
Phoenicia became rapidly Hellenised; and except that they still remained
devoted to commercial pursuits, the cities had scarcely any distinctive
character, or anything that marked them out as belonging to a separate
nationality. Greek legends became more frequent upon the coins; Greek
names were more and more affected, especially by the upper classes; the
men of letters discarded Phoenician as a literary language, and composed
the works, whereby they sought to immortalize their names, in Greek.
Greek philosophy was studied in the schools of Sidon;[14460] and at
Byblus Phoenician mythology was recast upon a Greek type. At the same
time Phoenician art conformed itself more and more closely to Greek
models, until all that was rude in it, or archaic, or peculiar, died
out, and the productions of Phoenician artists became mere feeble
imitations of second-rate Greek patterns.
The nation gave itself mainly to the pursuit of wealth. The old trades
were diligently plied. Tyre retained its pre-eminence in the manufacture
of the purple dye; and Sidon was still unrivalled in the production of
glass. Commerce continued to enrich the merchant princes, while at the
same time it provided a fairly lucrative employment for the mass of the
people. A new source of profit arose from the custom, introduced by
the Syro-Macedonians, of farming the revenue. In Phoenicia, as in Syria
generally, the taxes of each city were let out year by year to some of
the wealthiest men of the place,[14461] who collected them with extreme
strictness, and made over but a small proportion of the amount to
the Crown. Large fortunes were made in this way, though occasionally
foreigners would step in, and outbid the Phoenician speculators,[14462]
who were not content unless they gained above a hundred per cent.
on each transaction. Altogether, Phoenicia may be pronounced to have
enjoyed much material prosperity under the Seleucid princes, though,
in the course of the civil wars between the different pretenders to
the Crown, most of the cities had, from time to time, to endure sieges.
Accho especially, which had received from the Lagid princes the name
of Ptolemaïs, and was now the most important and flourishing of the
Phoenician towns, had frequently to resist attack, and was more than
once taken by storm.[14463]
8. Phoenicia under the Romans (B.C. 65-A.D. 650)
Syria made a Roman province, B.C. 65--Privileges granted by
Rome to the Phoenician cities--Phoenicia profits by the
Roman suppression of piracy, but suffers from Parthian
ravages--The Phoenicians offend Augustus and lose their
favoured position, but recover it under later emperors--
Mention of the Phoenician cities in the New Testament--
Phoenicia accepts Christianity--Phoenician bishops at the
early Councils--Phoenician literature at this date--Works of
Antipater, Apollonius, Philo, Hermippus, Marinus, Maximus,
and Porphyry--School of law at Berytus--Survival of the
Phoenician commercial spirit--Survival of the religion--
Summary.
The kingdom of the Seleucidæ came to an end through its own internal
weakness and corruption. In B.C. 83 their subjects, whether native
Asiatics or Syro-Macedonians, were so weary of the perpetual series of
revolts, civil wars, and assassinations that they invited Tigranes,
the king of the neighbouring Armenia, to step in and undertake the
government of the country.[14464] Tigranes ruled from B.C. 83 till B.C.
69, when he was attacked by the Romans, to whom he had given just cause
of offence by his conduct in the Mithridatic struggle. Compelled by
Lucullus to relinquish Syria, he retired to his own dominions, and was
succeeded by the last Seleucid prince, Antiochus Asiaticus, who reigned
from B.C. 69 to B.C. 65. Rome then at length came forward, and took the
inheritance to which she had become entitled a century and a quarter
earlier by the battle of Magnesia, and which she could have occupied at
any moment during the interval, had it suited her purpose. The combat
with Mithridates had forced her to become an Asiatic power; and having
once overcome her repugnance to being entangled in Asiatic politics,
she allowed her instinct of self-aggrandizement to have full play,
and reduced the kingdom of the Seleucidæ into the form of a Roman
province.[14465]
The province, which retained the name of Syria, and was placed under
a proconsul,[14466] whose title was “Præses Syriæ,” extended from the
flanks of Amanus and Taurus to Carmel and the sources of the Jordan,
and thus included Phoenicia. The towns, however, of Tripolis, Sidon, and
Tyre were allowed the position of “free cities,” which secured them an
independent municipal government, under their own freely elected council
and chief magistates. These privileges, conferred by Pompey, were not
withdrawn by Julius Cæsar, when he became master of the Roman world; and
hence we find him addressing a communication respecting Hyrcanus to the
“Magistates, Council, and People of Sidon.”[14467] A similar regard was
shown for Phoenician vested rights by Anthony, who in B.C. 36, when his
infatuation for Cleopatra was at its height, and he agreed to make over
to her the government of Palestine and of Coelesyria, as far as the
river Eleutherus, especially exempted from her control, despite her
earnest entreaties, the cities of Tyre and Sidon.[14468] Anthony also
wrote more than one letter to the “Magistates, Council, and People
of Tyre,” in which he recognised them as “allies” of the Roman people
rather than subjects.[14469]
So far the Phoenicians would seem to have gained rather than lost by
exchanging the dominion of Syria for that of Rome. They gained also
greatly by the strictness with which Rome kept the police of the Eastern
Mediterranean. For many years previously to B.C. 67 their commerce had
been preyed upon to an enormous extent by the piratical fleets, which,
issuing from the creeks and harbours of Western Cilicia and Pamphylia,
spread terror on every side,[14470] and made the navigation of the
Levant and Ægean as dangerous as it had been in the days anterior to
Minos.[14471] Pompey, in that year, completely destroyed the piratical
fleets, attacked the pirates in their lairs, and cleared them out from
every spot where they had established themselves. Voyages by sea became
once more as safe as travels by land; and a vigilant watch being kept on
all the coasts and islands, piracy was never again permitted to gather
strength, or become a serious evil. The Phoenician merchants could once
more launch their trading vessels on the Mediterranean waters without
fear of their suffering capture, and were able to insure their cargoes
at a moderate premium.
But their connection with Rome exposed the Phoenicians to some fresh,
and terrible, perils. The great attack of Crassus on Parthia in the year
B.C. 53 had bitterly exasperated that savage and powerful kingdom, which
was quite strong enough to retaliate, under favourable circumstances,
upon the mighty mistress of the West, and to inflict severe sufferings
upon Rome’s allies, subjects, and dependencies. After a preliminary
trial of strength[14472] in the years B.C. 522 and 51, Pacorus, the
son of Orodes, in B.C. 40, crossed the Euphrates in force, defeated the
Romans under Decidius Saxa, and carried fire and sword over the whole
of the Syrian presidency.[14473] Having taken Apamea and Antioch, he
marched into Phoenicia, ravaged the open country, and compelled all
the towns, except Tyre, to surrender. Tyre, notwithstanding the mole
constructed by Alexander, which joined it to the continent, was still
regarded as impregnable, unless invested both by sea and land; on which
account Pacorus, as he had no naval force, relinquished the idea of
capturing it.[14474] But all the other cities either gave themselves
up or were taken, and the conquest of Phoenicia being completed, the
Parthian prince proceeded to occupy Palestine. Jerusalem fell into his
hands, and for three years the entire tract between the Taurus range
and Egypt was lost to Rome, and formed a portion of the Parthian Empire.
What hardships, what insults, what outrages the Phoenicians had to
endure during this interval we do not know, and can only conjecture; but
the conduct of the Parthians at Jerusalem[14475] makes it probable that
the inhabitants of the conquered districts generally had much cause for
complaint. However, the time of endurance did not last very long; in
the third year from the commencement of the invasion the fortune of war
turned against the assailants. Rome, under Ventidius, recovered her
lost laurels. Syria was reoccupied, and the Parthians driven across the
Euphrates, never again to pass it.[14476]
In the struggle (which soon followed these events) between Antony and
Augustus, Phoenicia had the misfortune to give offence to the latter.
The terms on which they stood with Antony, and the protection which he
had afforded to their cities against the greed of Cleopatra, naturally
led them to embrace his cause; and it should scarcely have been regarded
as a crime in them that they did so with ardour. But Augustus, who
was certainly not clement by nature, chose to profess himself deeply
aggrieved by the preference which they had shown for his rival, and,
when he personally visited the East in B.C. 20, inflicted a severe
punishment on two at least of the cities. Dio Cassius can scarcely be
mistaken when he says that Tyre and Sidon were “enslaved”--i.e. deprived
of freedom--by Augustus,[14477] who must certainly have revoked the
privilege originally granted by Pompey. Whether the privilege was
afterwards restored is somewhat uncertain; but there is distinct
evidence that more than one of the later emperors was favourably
disposed to Rome’s Phoenician subjects. Claudius granted to Accho the
title and status of a Roman colony;[14478] while Hadrian allowed Tyre to
call herself a “metropolis.”[14479]
Two important events have caused Tyre and Sidon to be mentioned in the
New Testament. Jesus Christ, in the second year of his ministry, “arose
and went” from Galilee “into the borders of Tyre and Sidon,” and
there wrought a miracle at the earnest request of a “Syro-Phoenician
woman.”[14480] And Herod Agrippa, the grandson of Herod the Great,
when at Cæsarea in A.D. 44, received an embassy from “them of Tyre and
Sidon,” with whom he was highly offended, and “made an oration” to the
ambassadors.[14481] In this latter place the continued semi-independence
of Tyre and Sidon seems to be implied. Agrippa is threatening them with
war, while they “desire peace.” “Their country” is spoken of as if
it were distinct from all other countries. We cannot suppose that
the Judæan prince would have ventured to take up this attitude if the
Phoenician cities had been fully incorporated into the Roman State,
since in that case quarrelling with them would have been quarrelling
with Rome, a step on which even Agrippa, with all his pride and all his
rashness, would scarcely have ventured. It is probable, therefore, that
either Tiberius or Claudius had revoked the decree of Augustus, and
re-invested the Phoenician cities with the privilege whereof the first
of the emperors had deprived them.
Not long after this, about A.D. 57, we have evidence that the great
religious and social movement of the age had swept the Phoenician cities
within its vortex, and that, in some of them at any rate, Christian
communities had been formed, which were not ashamed openly to profess
the new religion. The Gospel was preached in Phoenicia[14482] as early
as A.D. 41. Sixteen years later, when St. Paul, on his return from
his third missionary journey, landed at Tyre, and proceeded thence
to Ptolemaïs, he found at both places “churches,” or congregations of
Christians, who received him kindly, ministered to his wants, prayed
with him, and showed a warm interest in his welfare.[14483] These
communities afterwards expanded. By the end of the second century after
Christ Tyre was the seat of a bishopric, which held an important place
among the Syrian Sees. Several Tyrian bishops of the second, third, and
fourth centuries are known to us, as Cassius (ab. A.D. 198), Marinus
(A.D. 253), Methodius (A.D. 267-305), Tyrannion (A.D. 310), and Paulinus
(A.D. 328). Early in the fourth century (B.C. 335) Tyre was the seat of
a synod or council, called to consider charges made against the great
Athanasius,[14484] who was taxed with cruelty, impiety, and the use of
magical arts. As the bishops who assembled belonged chiefly to the party
of Arius, the judgment of the council condemned Athanasius, and deprived
him of his see. On appeal the decision was reversed; Athanasius was
reinstated,[14485] and advanced; the cause with which he had identified
himself triumphed; and the Synod of Tyre being pronounced unorthodox,
the Tyrian church, like that of Antioch, sank in the estimation of the
Church at large.
Tyre also made herself obnoxious to the Christian world in another
way. In the middle of the third century she produced the celebrated
philosopher, Porphyry,[14486] who, of all the literary opponents of
Christianity, was the most vigorous and the most successful. Porphyry
appears to have been a Phoenician by descent. His original name was
Malchus--i.e. Melek or Malik, “king.” To disguise his Asiatic origin,
and ingratiate himself with the literary class of the day, who were
chiefly Greeks or Grecised Romans, he took the Hellenic and far more
sonorous appellation of Porphyrius, which he regarded as a sort of
synonym, since purple was the _royal_ colour. He early gave himself to
the study of philosophy, and was indefatigable in his efforts to acquire
knowledge and learning of every kind. In Asia, probably at Tyre
itself, he attended the lectures of Origen; at Athens he studied under
Apollonius and Longinus; in Rome, whereto he ultimately gravitated, he
attached himself to the Neo-Platonic school of Plotinus. His literary
labours, which were enormous, had for their general object the
establishment of that eclectic system which Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus,
Jamblichus, and others had elaborated, and were endeavouring to
impose upon the world as constituting at once true religion and true
philosophy. He was of a constructive rather than a destructive turn of
mind. Still, he thought it of great importance, and a necessity of
the times, that he should write a book against the Christians, whose
opinions were, he knew, making such progress as raised the suspicion
that they would prevail over all others, and in a short time become
universal. This polemical treatise ran to fifteen books, and “exhibited
considerable acquaintance with both the Jewish and the Christian
scriptures.”[14487] It is now lost, but its general character is well
known from the works of Eusebius, Jerome, and others. The style was
caustic and trenchant. An endeavour was made to show that both the
historical scriptures of the Old Testament and the Gospels and Acts in
the New were full of discrepancies and contradictions. The history and
antiquities of the Jews, as put forth in the Bible, were examined, and
declared to be unworthy of credit. A special attack was made on the
genuineness and authenticity of the book of Daniel, which was pronounced
to be the work of a contemporary of Antiochus Epiphanes, who succeeded
in palming off upon his countrymen his own crude production as the
work of the venerated sage and prophet. Prevalent modes of interpreting
scripture were passed under review, and the allegorical exegesis of
Origen was handled with especial severity. The work is said to have
produced a vast effect, especially among the upper classes, whose
conversion to Christianity it tended greatly to check and hinder.
Answers to the book, or to particular portions of it, were published by
Eusebius of Cæsarea, by Apollinaris, and by Methodius, Bishop of Tyre;
but these writers had neither the learning nor the genius of their
opponent, and did little to counteract the influence of his work on the
upper grades of society.[14488]
The literary importance of the Phoenician cities under the Romans is
altogether remarkable. Under Augustus and Tiberius--especially from
about B.C. 40 to A.D. 20--Sidon was the seat of a philosophical school,
in which the works of Aristotle were studied and explained,[14489]
perhaps to some extent criticised.[14490] Strabo attended this school
for a time in conjunction with two other students, named Boëthus and
Diodotus. Tyre had even previously produced the philosophers, Antipater,
who was intimate with the younger Cato, and Apollonius, who wrote a work
about Zeno, and formed a descriptive catalogue of the authors who had
composed books on the subject of the philosophy of the Stoics.[14491]
Strabo goes so far as to say that philosophy in all its various aspects
might in his day be better studied at Tyre and Sidon than anywhere
else.[14492] A little later we find Byblus producing the semi-religious
historian, Philo, who professed to reveal to the Greeks the secrets of
the ancient Phoenician mythology, and who, whatever we may think of his
judgment, was certainly a man of considerable learning. He was followed
by his pupil, Hermippus, who was contemporary with Trajan and Hadrian,
and obtained some reputation as a critic and grammarian.[14493] About
the same time flourished Marinus, the writer on geography, who was
a Tyrian by birth, and “the first author who substituted maps,
mathematically constructed according to latitude and longitude, for the
itinerary charts” of his predecessors.[14494] Ptolemy of Pelusium based
his great work entirely upon that of Marinus, who is believed to have
utilised the geographical and hydrographical accumulations of the old
Phoenician navigators, besides availing himself of the observations of
Hipparchus, and of the accounts given of their travels by various Greek
and Roman authors. Contemporary with Marinus was Paulus, a native of
Tyre, who was noted as a rhetorician, and deputed by his city to go as
their representative to Rome and plead the cause of the Tyrians before
Hadrian.[14495] A little later we hear of Maximus, who flourished under
Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (ab. A.D. 160-190), a Tyrian, like Paulus,
and a rhetorician and Platonic philosopher.[14496] The literary glories
of Tyre culminated and terminated with Porphyry, of whose works we have
already given an account.
Towards the middle of the third century after Christ a school of law and
jurisprudence arose at Berytus, which attained high distinction, and
is said by Gibbon[14497] to have furnished the eastern provinces of the
empire with pleaders and magistrates for the space of three centuries
(A.D. 250-550). The course of education at Berytus lasted five years,
and included Roman Law in all its various forms, the works of Papinian
being especially studied in the earlier times, and the same together
with the edicts of Justinian in the later.[14498] Pleaders were forced
to study either at Berytus, or at Rome, or at Constantinople,[14499]
and, the honours and emoluments of the profession being large, the
supply of students was abundant and perpetual. External misfortune, and
not internal decay, at last destroyed the school, the town of Berytus
being completely demolished by an earthquake in the year A.D. 551. The
school was then transferred to Sidon, but appears to have languished
on its transplantation to a new soil and never to have recovered its
pristine vigour or vitality.
It is difficult to decide how far these literary glories of the
Phoenician cities reflect any credit on the Phoenician race. Such a
number of Greeks settled in Syria and Phoenicia under the Seleucidæ
that to be a Tyrian or a Sidonian in the Græco-Roman period furnished
no evidence at all of a man having any Phoenician blood in his veins.
It will have been observed that the names of the Tyrian, Sidonian, and
Berytian learned men and authors of the time--Antipater, Apollonius,
Boëthus, Diodotus, Philo, Hermippus, Marinus, Paulus, Maximus,
Porphyrius--are without exception either Latin or Greek. The language in
which the books were written was universally Greek, and in only one or
two cases is there reason to suppose that the authors had any knowledge
of the Phoenician tongue. The students at Berytus between A.D. 250 and
550 were probably, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, Greeks or
Romans. Phoenician nationality had, in fact, almost wholly disappeared
in the Seleucid period. The old language ceased to be spoken, and
though for some time retained upon the coins together with a Greek
legend,[14500] became less frequent as time went on, and soon after the
Christian era disappeared altogether. It is probable that, as a spoken
language, Phoenician had gone out of use even earlier.[14501]
In two respects only did the old national spirit survive, and give
indication that, even in the nation’s “ashes,” there still lived some
remnant of its “wonted fires.” Tyre and Sidon were great commercial
centres down to the time of the Crusades, and quite as rich, quite as
important, quite as flourishing, commercially, as in the old days of
Hiram and Ithobal. Mela[14502] speaks of Sidon in the second century
after Christ as “still opulent.” Ulpian,[14503] himself a Tyrian by
descent, calls Tyre in the reign of Septimus Severus “a most splendid
colony.” A writer of the age of Constantine says of it: “The prosperity
of Tyre is extraordinary. There is no state in the whole of the East
which excels it in the amount of its business. Its merchants are
persons of great wealth, and there is no port where they do not exercise
considerable influence.”[14504] St. Jerome, towards the end of the
fourth century, speaks of Tyre as “the noblest and most beautiful of all
the cities of Phoenicia,”[14505] and as “an emporium for the commerce of
almost the whole world.”[14506] During the period of the Crusades, “Tyre
retained its ancient pre-eminence among the cities of the Syrian coast,
and excited the admiration of the warriors of Europe by its capacious
harbours, its wall, triple towards the land and double towards the sea,
its still active commerce, and the beauty and fertility of the opposite
shore.” The manufactures of purple and of glass were still carried on.
Tyre was not reduced to insignificance until the Saracenic conquest
towards the close of the thirteenth century of our era, when its trade
collapsed, and it became “a rock for fishermen to spread their nets
upon.”[14507]
The other respect in which the vitality of the old national spirit
displayed itself was in the continuance of the ancient religion. While
Christianity was adopted very generally by the more civilised of the
inhabitants, and especially by those who occupied the towns, there were
shrines and fanes in the remote districts, and particularly in the less
accessible parts of Lebanon, where the old rites were still in force,
and the old orgies continued to be carried on, just as in ancient times,
down to the reign of Constantine. The account of the licentious worship
of Ashtoreth at Aphaca, which has been already quoted from Eusebius,
belongs to the fourth century after our era, and shows the tenacity with
which a section of the Phoenicians, not withstanding their Hellenisation
in language, in literature, and in art, clung to the old barbarous and
awful cult, which had come down to them by tradition from their fathers.
A similar worship at the same time maintained itself on the other side
of the Lebanon chain in Heliopolis, or Baalbek, where the votaries of
impurity allowed their female relatives, even their wives and
their daughters, to play the harlot as much as they pleased.[14508]
Constantine exerted himself to put down and crush out these iniquities,
but it is more than probable that, in the secret recesses of the
mountain region, whither government officials would find it hard to
penetrate, the shameful and degrading rites still found a refuge, rooted
as they were in the depraved affections of the common people, to a much
later period.
The mission of the Phoenicians, as a people, was accomplished before the
subjection to Rome began. Under the Romans they were still ingenious,
industrious, intelligent. But in the earlier times they were far more
than this. They were the great pioneers of civilisation. Intrepid,
inventive, enterprising, they at once made vast progress in the arts
themselves, and carried their knowledge, their active habits, and their
commercial instincts into the remotest regions of the old continent.
They exercised a stimulating, refining, and civilising influence
wherever they went. North and south and east and west they adventured
themselves amid perils of all kinds, actuated by the love of adventure
more than by the thirst for gain, conferring benefits, spreading
knowledge, suggesting, encouraging, and developing trade, turning men
from the barbarous and unprofitable pursuits of war and bloodshed to
the peaceful occupations of productive industry. They did not aim at
conquest. They united the various races of men by the friendly links of
mutual advantage and mutual dependence, conciliated them, softened them,
humanised them. While, among the nations of the earth generally, brute
force was worshipped as the true source of power and the only basis of
national repute, the Phoenicians succeeded in proving that as much could
be done by arts as by arms, as great glory and reputation gained, as
real a power built up, by the quiet agencies of exploration, trade, and
commerce, as by the violent and brutal methods of war, massacre, and
ravage. They were the first to set this example. If the history of the
world since their time has not been wholly one of the potency in human
affairs of “blood and iron,” it is very much owing to them. They, and
their kinsmen of Carthage, showed mankind what a power might be wielded
by commercial states. The lesson has not been altogether neglected in
the past. May the writer be pardoned if, in the last words of what is
probably his last historical work, he expresses a hope that, in the
future, the nations of the earth will more and more take the lesson to
heart, and vie with each other in the arts which made Phoenicia great,
rather than in those which exalted Rome, her oppressor and destroyer?
FOOTNOTES
PREFACE
[Footnote 01: _Die Phönizier, und das phönizische Alterthum_, by F. C.
Movers, in five volumes, Berlin, 1841-1856.]
[Footnote 02: _History and Antiquities of Phoenicia_, by John Kenrick,
London, 1855.]
[Footnote 03: _Histoire de l’Art dans l’Antiquité_, par MM. Perrot et
Chipiez, Paris, 1881-7, 4 vols.]
[Footnote 04: Will of William Camden, Clarencieux King-of-Arms, founder
of the “Camden Professorship,” 1662.]
I--THE LAND
[Footnote 11: See Eckhel, _Doctr. Num. Vet._ p. 441.]
[Footnote 12: {’H ton ‘Aradion paralia}, xvi. 2, § 12.]
[Footnote 13: Pomp. Mel. _De Situ Orbis_, i. 12.]
[Footnote 14: The tract of white sand (Er-Ramleh) which forms the
coast-line of the entire shore from Rhinocolura to Carmel is said to
be gradually encroaching, fresh sand being continually brought by the
south-west wind from Egypt. “It has buried Ascalon, and in the north,
between Joppa and Cæsaræa, the dunes are said to be as much as three
miles wide and 300 feet high” (Grove, in Smith’s _Dict. of the Bible_,
ii. 673).]
[Footnote 15: See Cant. ii. 1; Is. xxxiii. 9; xxxv. 2; lxv. 10.]
[Footnote 16: Stanley, _Sinai and Palestine_, p. 254.]
[Footnote 17: The Kaneh derives its name from this circumstance, and may
be called “the River of Canes.”]
[Footnote 18: Robinson, _Biblical Researches_, iii. 28, 29.]
[Footnote 19: Grove, l.s.c.]
[Footnote 110: Stanley, _Sinai and Palestine_, p. 260.]
[Footnote 111: Lynch found it eighteen yards in width in April 1848
(_The Jordan and the Dead Sea_, p. 64). He found the Belus twice as wide
and twice as deep as the Kishon.]
[Footnote 112: A more particular description of these fountains will be
given in the description of the city of Tyre, with which they were very
closely connected.]
[Footnote 113: Robinson, _Biblical Researches_, iii. 410.]
[Footnote 114: Robinson, iii. 415.]
[Footnote 115: Ibid. p. 414. Compare Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, pp.
524, 665.]
[Footnote 116: Robinson, iii. 420.]
[Footnote 117: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 353.]
[Footnote 118: See Edrisi (traduction de Joubert), i. 355; D’Arvieux,
_Mémoires_, ii. 33; Renan, pp. 352, 353.]
[Footnote 119: Gesenius, _Thesaurus_, p. 247.]
[Footnote 120: Renan, pp. 59, 60.]
[Footnote 121: Kenrick (_Phoenicia_, p. 8), who quotes Burckhardt
(_Syria_, p. 161), and Chesney (_Euphrates Expedition_, i. 450).]
[Footnote 122: Renan, p. 59:--“C’est un immense tapis de fleurs.”]
[Footnote 123: Mariti, _Travels_, ii. 131 (quoted by Kenrick, p. 22).]
[Footnote 124: Strabo, xvi. 2, § 27.]
[Footnote 125: Stanley, _Sinai and Palestine_, p. 344.]
[Footnote 126: Martineau, _Eastern Life_, p. 539.]
[Footnote 127: Van de Velde, _Travels_, i. 317, 318. Compare Porter,
_Giant Cities of Bashan_, p. 236.]
[Footnote 128: Ritter, _Erdkunde_, xvi. 31.]
[Footnote 129: Grove, in Smith’s _Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 278.]
[Footnote 130: Walpole’s _Ansayrii_, iii. 156.]
[Footnote 131: The derivation of Lebanon from “white,” is generally
admitted. (see Gesenius, _Thesaurus_, p. 369; Buxtorf, _Lexicon_, p.
1119; Fürst, _Concordantia_, p. 588.)]
[Footnote 132: Stanley, _Sinai and Palestine_, p. 395.]
[Footnote 133: Tristram, _The Land of Israel_, p. 634.]
[Footnote 134: Ibid. p. 7.]
[Footnote 135: Porter, in Smith’s _Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 86.]
[Footnote 136: Ibid. Compare _Nat. Hist. Review_, No. v. p. 11.]
[Footnote 137: See Tristram, _Land of Israel_, pp. 625-629.]
[Footnote 138: See Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 626.]
[Footnote 139: Porter, in _Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 86.]
[Footnote 140: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 621.]
[Footnote 141: Ibid. p. 600. Compare Porter, in Smith’s _Dictionary of
the Bible_, ii. 87.]
[Footnote 142: Such outlets are common in Greece, where they are called
_Katavothra_. They probably also occur in Asia Minor.]
[Footnote 143: Burckhardt, _Travels in Syria_, p. 10; Chesney,
_Euphrates Expedition_, i. 398.]
[Footnote 144: Tristram, p. 600.]
[Footnote 145: Porter, _Handbook for Syria_, p. 571; Robinson, _Later
Researches_, p. 423.]
[Footnote 146: Tristram, p. 594.]
[Footnote 147: Robinson, _Biblical Researches_, iii. 409.]
[Footnote 148: Burckhardt, _Travels in Syria_, p. 161; Chesney,
_Euphrates Expedition_, i. 450; Walpole’s _Ansayrii_, iii. 49.]
[Footnote 149: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 116.]
[Footnote 150: Porter, _Giant Cities of Bashan_, p. 289.]
[Footnote 151: Ibid. p. 288.]
[Footnote 152: Walpole’s _Ansayrii_, iii. 44.]
[Footnote 153: Porter, _Giant Cities_, p. 292; Robinson, _Later
Researches_, p. 605; Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 297.]
[Footnote 154: Maundrell, _Travels_, pp. 57, 58; Porter, _Giant Cities_,
p. 284; Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 283.]
[Footnote 155: Porter, p. 283.]
[Footnote 156: Porter, p. 284.]
[Footnote 157: Robinson, _Later Researches_, p. 45.]
[Footnote 158: Ibid. p. 43.]
[Footnote 159: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 44.]
[Footnote 160: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 20.]
[Footnote 161: See the _Transactions of the Society of Bibl.
Archæology_, vol. vii.; and compare Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 14;
Robinson, _Later Researches_, pp. 617-624.]
[Footnote 162: Walpole’s _Ansayrii_, iii. 6.]
[Footnote 163: Ibid. p. 34. Compare Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, who
calls the pass over the spur “un véritable casse-cou sur des roches
inclinées” (p. 150).]
[Footnote 164: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 16.]
[Footnote 165: Robinson, _Biblical Researches_, iii. 432.]
II--CLIMATE AND PRODUCTIONS
[Footnote 21: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 32.]
[Footnote 22: Grove, in Smith’s _Dict. of the Bible_, ii. 693.]
[Footnote 23: Kenrick, l.s.c.]
[Footnote 24: See Canon Tristram’s experiences, _Land of Israel_, pp.
96-115.]
[Footnote 25: Ibid. pp. 94, 95.]
[Footnote 26: Kenrick, p. 34.]
[Footnote 27: Walpole’s _Ansayrii_, p. 76.]
[Footnote 28: Kenrick, p. 33.]
[Footnote 29: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 95.]
[Footnote 210: Ibid. p. 409.]
[Footnote 211: Ibid. p. 31.]
[Footnote 212: Ibid. p. 34.]
[Footnote 213: Ibid. p. 596.]
[Footnote 214: Hooker, in _Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 684.]
[Footnote 215: Hooker, in _Dictionary of the Bible_, p. 683.]
[Footnote 216: Dr. Hooker says:--“_Q. pseudococcifera_ is perhaps the
commonest plant in all Syria and Palestine, covering as a low dense
bush many square miles of hilly country everywhere, but rarely or never
growing on the plains. It seldom becomes a large tree, except in the
valleys of the Lebanon.” Walpole found it on Bargylus (_Ansayrii_, iii.
137 et sqq.); Tristram on Lebanon, _Land of Israel_, pp. 113, 117.]
[Footnote 217: Hooker, in _Dict. of the Bible_, ii. 684. Compare
Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 113.]
[Footnote 218: Ibid.]
[Footnote 219: See Walpole, _Ansayrii_, iii. 222, 236; Tristram, _Land
of Israel_, pp. 622, 623; Robinson, _Later Researches_, p. 607.]
[Footnote 220: Walpole, iii. 433; Robinson, _Later Researches_, p..
614.]
[Footnote 221: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 6.]
[Footnote 222: Ibid. p. 111; Walpole, _Ansayrii_, iii. 166; Hooker, in
_Dict. of the Bible_, ii. 683.]
[Footnote 223: Walpole says that Ibrahim Pasha cut down as many as
500,000 Aleppo pines in Casius (_Ansayrii_, iii. 281), and that it would
be quite feasible to cut down 500,000 more.]
[Footnote 224: Hooker, in _Dict. of the Bible_, ii. 684; and compare
Tristram, _Land of Israel_, pp. 16, 88.]
[Footnote 225: Robinson, _Biblical Researches_, iii. 383, 415.]
[Footnote 226: Ezek. xxxi. 3.]
[Footnote 227: Ibid. xxvii. 5. The Hebrew _erez_ probably covered other
trees besides the actual cedar, as the Aleppo pine, and perhaps the
juniper. The pine would have been more suited for masts than the cedar.]
[Footnote 228: 1 Kings vi. 9, 10, 15, 18, &c.; vii. 1-7.]
[Footnote 229: _Records of the Past_, i. 104. ll. 78, 79; iii. 74, ll.
88-90; p. 90, l. 9; &c. Compare Layard, _Nineveh and Babylon_, pp. 356,
357.]
[Footnote 230: Joseph, _Bell. Jud._, v. 5, § 2.]
[Footnote 231: Plin. _H. N._, xiii. 5; xvi. 40.]
[Footnote 232: Compare the arguments of Canon Tristram, _Land of
Israel_, pp. 631, 632.]
[Footnote 233: Walpole, _Ansayrii_, pp. 123, 227.]
[Footnote 234: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 621.]
[Footnote 235: Ibid. pp. 13, 38, &c.]
[Footnote 236: Hooker, in _Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 684.]
[Footnote 237: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 82; compare Hooker,
l.s.c.]
[Footnote 238: This is Dr. Hooker’s description. Canon Tristram says
of the styrax at the eastern foot of Carmel, that “of all the flowering
shrubs it is the most abundant,” and that it presents to the eye “one
sheet of pure white blossom, rivalling the orange in its beauty and its
perfume” (_Land of Israel_, p. 492).]
[Footnote 239: Ibid. p. 596.]
[Footnote 240: Walpole, _Ansayrii_, iii. 298.]
[Footnote 241: Tristram, pp. 16, 28, &c.; Robinson, _Biblical
Researches_, iii. 438.]
[Footnote 242: The “terraced vineyards of Esfia” on Carmel are noted by
Canon Tristram (_Land of Israel_, p. 492). Walpole speaks of vineyards
on Bargylus (_Ansaryii_, iii. 165). The vine-clad slopes of the Lebanon
attract notice from all Eastern travellers.]
[Footnote 243: Quoted by Dr. Hooker, in Smith’s _Dictionary of the
Bible_, ii. 684, 685.]
[Footnote 244: Deut. xxxiii. 24.]
[Footnote 245: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, pp. 7, 16, 17; Walpole,
_Ansayrii_, iii. 147, 177.]
[Footnote 246: Tristram, p. 492; Stanley, _Sinai and Palestine_, p.
347.]
[Footnote 247: Hooker, in Smith’s _Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 685.]
[Footnote 248: Tristram, pp. 622, 633; Walpole, _Ansayrii_, iii. 446;
Robinson, _Later Researches_, p. 607.]
[Footnote 249: Tristram, pp. 17, 38; Walpole, _Ansayrii_, iii. 32, 294,
373.]
[Footnote 250: Robinson, _Bibl. Researches_, iii. 419, 431, 438, &c.]
[Footnote 251: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 28.]
[Footnote 252: Hasselquist, _Reise_, p. 188.]
[Footnote 253: _Ansayrii_, i. 66.]
[Footnote 254: Tristram, l.s.c.]
[Footnote 255: Hooker, in _Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 685.]
[Footnote 256: _Reise_, l.s.c.]
[Footnote 257: _Mémoires_, i. 332.]
[Footnote 258: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 493.]
[Footnote 259: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 82.]
[Footnote 260: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 59; Hooker, in
_Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 687; Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 493.]
[Footnote 261: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, l.s.c.]
[Footnote 262: Ibid. p. 82.]
[Footnote 263: Ibid. p. 596. Compare Walpole’s _Ansayrii_, iii. 443.]
[Footnote 264: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 102.]
[Footnote 265: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, pp. 61, 599.]
[Footnote 266: Ibid. pp. 38, 626, &c. Dr. Robinson notices the
cultivation of the potato high up in Lebanon; but he observed it only in
two places (_Later Researches_, pp. 586, 596).]
[Footnote 267: It can scarcely be doubted that Phoenicia contained
anciently two other land animals of considerable importance, viz. the
lion and the deer. Lions, which were common in the hills of Palestine
(1 Sam. xvii. 34; 1 Kings xiii. 24; xx. 36; 2 Kings xvii. 25, 26) and
frequented also the Philistine plain (Judg. xiv. 5), would certainly not
have neglected the lowland of Sharon, which was in all respects suited
for their habits. Deer, which still inhabit Galilee (Tristram, _Land of
the Israel_, pp. 418, 447), are likely, before the forests of Lebanon
were so greatly curtailed, to have occupied most portions of it (See
Cant. ii. 9, 17; viii. 14). To these two Canon Tristram would add the
crocodile (_Land of Israel_, p. 103), which he thinks must have been
found in the Zerka for that river to have been called “the Crocodile
River” by the Greeks, and which he is inclined to regard as still a
denizen of the Zerka marshes. But most critics have supposed that the
animal from which the Zerka got its ancient name was rather some large
species of monitor.]
[Footnote 268: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 36.]
[Footnote 269: See his article on Lebanon in Smith’s _Dictionary of the
Bible_, ii. 87.]
[Footnote 270: _Land of Israel_, p. 447.]
[Footnote 271: Houghton, in Smith’s _Dict. of the Bible_, ad voc. BEAR,
iii. xxv.]
[Footnote 272: _Dict. of the Bible_, ii. 87.]
[Footnote 273: _Land of Israel_, p. 116. Compare Porter’s _Giant Cities
of Bashan_, p. 236.]
[Footnote 274: Cant. iv. 8; Is. xi. 6; Jer. v. 6; xiii. 23; Hos. xiii.
7; Hab. i. 8.]
[Footnote 275: _Land of Israel_, l.s.c.]
[Footnote 276: Ibid. p. 83.]
[Footnote 277: Ibid. p. 115.]
[Footnote 278: Walpole’s _Ansayrii_, iii. 23.]
[Footnote 279: Houghton, in Smith’s _Dict. of the Bible_, ad voc. CONEY
(iii. xliii.); Tristram, _Land of Israel_, pp. 62, 84, 89.]
[Footnote 280: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 106.]
[Footnote 281: Ibid. pp. 88, 89.]
[Footnote 282: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 83.]
[Footnote 283: Ibid. p. 55.]
[Footnote 284: Ibid. p. 103. Compare Walpole, _Ansayrii_, iii. 34, 188,
and Lortet, _La Syrie d’aujourd’hui_, pp. 58, 61.]
[Footnote 285: _Hist. Nat._ ix. 36.]
[Footnote 286: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 239. There are representations
of the Buccunum in Forbes and Hanley’s _British Mollusks_, vol. iv. pl.
cii. Nos. 1, 2, 3.]
[Footnote 287: Kenrick, p. 239.]
[Footnote 288: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 51.]
[Footnote 289: Wilksinson, in Rawlinson’s _Herodotus_, ii. 347, note 2.]
[Footnote 290: Canon Tristram writs: “Among the rubbish thrown out in
the excavations made at Tyre were numerous fragments of glass, and whole
‘kitchen middens’ of shells, crushed and broken, the owners of which had
once supplied the famous Tyrian purple dye. All these shells were of one
species, the _Murex brandaris_” (_Land of Israel_, p. 51).]
[Footnote 291: Porter, in _Dict. of the Bible_, ii. 87.]
[Footnote 292: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 37.]
[Footnote 293: Tristram, p. 634.]
[Footnote 294: Grove, in _Dict. of the Bible_, i. 279.]
III--THE PEOPLE--ORIGIN AND CHARACTERISTICS
[Footnote 31: _Histoire des Languages Sémitiques_, p. 22.]
[Footnote 32: _Rhet._ iii. 8.]
[Footnote 33: Deutsch, _Literary Remains_, p. 160.]
[Footnote 34: Renan, _Hist. des Langues Sémitiques_, pp. 5, 14.]
[Footnote 35: Ibid. p. 16.]
[Footnote 36: Deutsch, _Literary Remains_, p. 305.]
[Footnote 37: Ibid.]
[Footnote 38: _Ancient Monarchies_, i. 275; Deutsch, p. 306.]
[Footnote 39: Herod. i. 2; vii. 89.]
[Footnote 310: Strab. xvi. 3, § 4.]
[Footnote 311: _Hist. Philipp._ xviii. 3, § 2.]
[Footnote 312: _Ancient Monarchies_, i. 14.]
[Footnote 313: Renan, _Histoire des Langues Sémitiques_, p. 183.]
[Footnote 314: Deutsch, _Literary Remains_, pp. 162, 163.]
[Footnote 315: Herod. vi. 47:--{’Oros mega anestrammenon en te
zetesei}.]
[Footnote 316: On this imaginary “monsters,” see Herod. vi. 44.]
[Footnote 317: Ibid. iv. 42.]
[Footnote 318: Herod. vii. 85.]
[Footnote 319: Ibid. ii. 112.]
[Footnote 320: 1 Kings xi. 1.]
[Footnote 321: Ibid. xvi. 31.]
[Footnote 322: Ezra iii. 7.]
[Footnote 323: Is. xxiii. 15-18.]
[Footnote 324: Mark vii. 26-30.]
[Footnote 325: Acts xii. 20.]
[Footnote 326: Herod. iv. 196.]
[Footnote 327: Herod, i. 1:--{Perseon oi Lagioi}.]
[Footnote 328: Ibid. ii. 190.]
[Footnote 329: Ibid. ii. 4, 99, 142.]
[Footnote 330: Ibid. i. 1; iv. 42; vi. 47; vii. 23, 44, 96.]
[Footnote 331: As they do of being indebted to the Babylonians and the
Egyptians for astronomical and philosophic knowledge.]
[Footnote 332: Deutsch, _Literary Remains_, p. 163.]
[Footnote 333: Ibid.]
[Footnote 334: Compare the representation of Egyptian ships in
Dümichen’s _Voyage d’une Reine Egyptienne_ (date about B.C. 1400)
with the far later Phoenician triremes depicted by Sennacherib (Layard,
_Monuments of Nineveh_, second series, pl. 71).]
[Footnote 335: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, pp. 100, 101.]
[Footnote 336: The Cypriot physiognomy is peculiar. (See Di Cesnola’s
_Cyprus_, pp. 123, 129, 131, 132, 133, 141, &c.)]
[Footnote 337: Herod. vii. 90.]
[Footnote 338: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 68, note 3.]
IV--THE CITIES
[Footnote 41: The nearest approach to such a period is the time a little
preceding Nebuchadnezzar’s siege, when Sidon, Byblus, and Aradus all
appear as subject to Tyre (Ezek. xxvii. 8-11).]
[Footnote 42: 1 Kings xvii. 9-24.]
[Footnote 43: 1 Macc. xv. 37.]
[Footnote 44: Gen. x. 15.]
[Footnote 45: Josh. xix. 29.]
[Footnote 46: Ibid. verse 28.]
[Footnote 47: See Hom. _Il._ vii. 290; xxiii. 743; _Od._ iv. 618; xiv.
272, 285; xvi. 117, 402, 424.]
[Footnote 48: _Hist. Philipp._ xviii. 3, § 2.]
[Footnote 49: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 460.]
[Footnote 410: Steph, Byz. ad voc.]
[Footnote 411: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, pl. lxvii.]
[Footnote 412: Scylax, _Periplus_, § 104. This work belongs to the time
of Philip, Alexander’s father.]
[Footnote 413: See Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, pl. lxii.]
[Footnote 414: The inscription on the sarcophagus of Esmunazar. (See
_Records of the Past_, ix. 111-114, and the _Corp. Inscr. Semit._, i.
13-20.)]
[Footnote 415: The name “Palæ-Tyrus” is first found in Strabo (xvi. 2, §
24).]
[Footnote 416: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 347.]
[Footnote 417: Plin. _H. N._ v. 17.]
[Footnote 418: Renan (_Mission de Phénicie_, p. 552) gives the area as
576,508 square metres.]
[Footnote 419: Arrian, _Exp. Alex._ ii. 21.]
[Footnote 420: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 560.]
[Footnote 421: So Bertou (_Topographie de Tyr_, p. 14), and Kenrick
(_Phoenicia_, p. 352).]
[Footnote 422: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 560.]
[Footnote 423: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 351.]
[Footnote 424: See the fragments of Dius and Menander, preserved by
Josephus (_Contr. Ap._ i. § 17, 18), and compare Arrian, _Exp. Alex._
ii. 24. It is quite uncertain what Phoenician deity is represented by
“Agenor.”]
[Footnote 425: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 559.]
[Footnote 426: Ibid.]
[Footnote 427: Ibid.]
[Footnote 428: Strab. xvi. 2, § 23.]
[Footnote 429: Menand, ap. Joseph. l.s.c.]
[Footnote 430: Strab. l.s.c.]
[Footnote 431: Eight thousand are said to have been killed in the siege,
and 30,000 sold when the place was taken. (Arrian, _Exp. Alex._ l.s.c.)
A certain number were spared.]
[Footnote 432: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 552.]
[Footnote 433: Plin. _H. N._ v. 17.]
[Footnote 434: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 348.]
[Footnote 435: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 22.]
[Footnote 436: See Capt. Allen’s _Dead Sea_, ii. 179.]
[Footnote 437: See Capt. Allen’s _Dead Sea_, ii. 179.]
[Footnote 438: Strabo, xvi. 2, § 13.]
[Footnote 439: Allen, _Dead Sea_, l.s.c.]
[Footnote 440: Ibid. p. 180.]
[Footnote 441: See the woodcut, and compare Renan, _Mission de
Phénicie_, planches, pl. ii.; and Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art
dans l’Antiquité_, iii. 25.]
[Footnote 442: Allen, _Dead Sea_, ii. 180.]
[Footnote 443: Ibid.]
[Footnote 444: Strab. xvi. 2, § 13.]
[Footnote 445: Strab. xvi. 2, § 13. See also Lucret. _De Rer. Nat._ vi.
890.]
[Footnote 446: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 42.]
[Footnote 447: Strab. xvi. 2, § 12.]
[Footnote 448: Fr. ii. 7. Philo, however, makes “Brathu” a mountain.]
[Footnote 449: See _Records of the Past_, iii. 19, 20.]
[Footnote 450: _Mission de Phénicie_, pp. 58-61.]
[Footnote 451: Strab. l.s.c.]
[Footnote 452: Ibid.]
[Footnote 453: Gen. x. 18.]
[Footnote 454: _Eponym Canon_, p. 123, 1. 2.]
[Footnote 455: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 115. And compare the
map.]
[Footnote 456: Carnus is identified by M. Renan with the modern Carnoun,
on the coast, three miles north of Tortosa (_Mission_, p. 97).]
[Footnote 457: _Eponym Canon_, p. 114, l. 104.]
[Footnote 458: Josh. xiii. 5; 1 Kings v. 18.]
[Footnote 459: Arr. _Exp. Alex._ ii. 15.]
[Footnote 460: Strab. xvi. 2, § 18.]
[Footnote 461: Fragm. ii. 8, § 17.]
[Footnote 462: _Corp. Inscr. Sem._, i. 3 (pl 1); Philo-Bybl. Fr. ii. 8,
§ 25.]
[Footnote 463: Strab. l.s.c.]
[Footnote 464: Allen, _Dead Sea_, ii. 164.]
[Footnote 465: Ibid.]
[Footnote 466: Strab. xvi. 2, § 15.]
[Footnote 467: See G. Smith’s _Eponym Canon_, pp. 123, 132, 148.]
[Footnote 468: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 9.]
[Footnote 469: Burckhardt, _Travels in Syria_, p. 162.]
[Footnote 470: Scylax, _Peripl._, § 104; Diod. Sic. xvi. 41; Pomp. Mel.
i. 12.]
[Footnote 471: Tristram, _Land of Israel_, p. 633; Perrot et Chipiez,
_Histoire de l’Art dans l’Antiquité_, iii. 56.]
[Footnote 472: Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 57, 59.]
[Footnote 473: Allen, _Dead Sea_, ii. 152.]
[Footnote 474: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 295.]
[Footnote 475: Lucian, _De Dea Syra_, § 9.]
[Footnote 476: Philo. Bybl. Fr. ii. 8, § 25.]
[Footnote 477: Stephen of Byzantium calls it {polin thoinikes ek mikrae
megalen}. Strabo says that it was rebuilt by the Romans (xvi. 2, § 19).]
[Footnote 478: Phocas, _Descr. Urbium_, § 5.]
[Footnote 479: Cellarius, _Geograph._ ii. 378.]
[Footnote 480: Gen. x. 17.]
[Footnote 481: _Eponym Canon_, pp. 120, l. 25; 123, l. 2.]
[Footnote 482: Josh. xix. 29.]
[Footnote 483: _Eponym Canon_, p. 132, l. 10.]
[Footnote 484: _Eponym Canon_, p. 132, l. 10; 148, l. 103.]
[Footnote 485: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, pp. 20, 21.]
[Footnote 486: This seems to be the true meaning of Strab. xvi. 2, § 25;
sub init.]
[Footnote 487: Josh. vii. 23.]
[Footnote 488: Ibid. xvii. 11.]
[Footnote 489: 1 Kings iv. 11.]
[Footnote 490: _Ancient Monarchies_, ii. 132.]
[Footnote 491: Steph. Byz. ad voc. DORA.]
[Footnote 492: Hieronym. _Epit. Paulæ_ (Opp. i. 223).]
[Footnote 493: Josh. xix. 47.]
[Footnote 494: 1 Macc. x. 76.]
[Footnote 495: Jonah i. 3.]
[Footnote 496: 2 Chron. ii. 16.]
[Footnote 497: Ezra iii. 7.]
[Footnote 498: See Capt. Allen’s _Dead Sea_, ii. 188.]
[Footnote 499: Eustah. _ad Dionys. Perieg._ l. 915.]
[Footnote 4100: Compare the Heb. “Ramah” and “Ramoth” from {...}, “to be
high.”]
[Footnote 4101: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 3.]
[Footnote 4102: Gesenius, _Monumenta Scripture Linguæque, Phoeniciæ_, p.
271.]
[Footnote 4103: Allen, _Dead Sea_, ii. 189.]
[Footnote 4104: Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_, iii. 23.]
[Footnote 4105: Perrot and Chipiez, iii. 23-25.]
[Footnote 4106: Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art dans l’Antiquité_,
iii. 25, 26.]
[Footnote 4107: The Phoenicians held Dor and Joppa during the greater
part of their existence as a nation, but the tract between them, and
that between Dor and Carmel--the plain of Sharon--shows no trace of
their occupation.]
V--THE COLONIES
[Footnote 51: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 71.]
[Footnote 52: Gen. x. 4. Compare Joseph. _Ant. Jud._ i. 6.]
[Footnote 53: Kenrick, p. 72.]
[Footnote 54: The two plains are sometimes regarded as one, which is
called that of Mesaoria; but they are really distinct, being separated
by high ground in Long. 33º nearly.]
[Footnote 55: Ælian, _Hist. Ann._ v. 56.]
[Footnote 56: Strab. xiv. 6, § 5.]
[Footnote 57: Theophrastus, _Hist. Plant._ v. 8.]
[Footnote 58: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, Introduction, p. 7.]
[Footnote 59: The copper of Cyprus became known as {khalkos Kuprios}
or {Æs Cyprium}, then as _cyprium_ or _cyprum_, finally as “copper,”
“kupfer,” “cuivre,” &c.]
[Footnote 510: Ezek. xxvii. 6.]
[Footnote 511: Compare Ammianus--“Tanta tamque multiplici fertilitate
abundat rerum omnium Cyprus, ut, nullius externi indigens adminiculi,
indigenis viribus a fundamento ipso carinæ ad supremos ipsos carbasos
ædificet onerariam navem, omnibusque armamentis instructam mari
committat” (xiv. 8, § 14).]
[Footnote 512: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 49.]
[Footnote 513: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 75.]
[Footnote 514: Di Cesnola, pp. 65-117.]
[Footnote 515: Ibid. pp. 68, 83.]
[Footnote 516: Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_, iii. 215.]
[Footnote 517: Ibid.]
[Footnote 518: {Polis Kuprou arkhaiotate}.]
[Footnote 519: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 294.]
[Footnote 520: Ibid. pp. 254-281.]
[Footnote 521: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 294.]
[Footnote 522: Ibid. p. 378.]
[Footnote 523: Strabo, xiv. 6, § 3; Steph. Byz. ad voc. CURIUM.]
[Footnote 524: Herod. v. 113.]
[Footnote 525: Apollodor. _Biblioth._ iii. 14, § 13.]
[Footnote 526: Virg. _Æn._ i. 415-417; Tacit. _Ann._ iii. 62; _Hist._
ii. 2; Strab. xiv. 6, § 3.]
[Footnote 527: Ps. lxxvi. 2.]
[Footnote 528: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 201.]
[Footnote 529: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 198, and Map.]
[Footnote 530: _Eponym Canon_, p. 139, l. 23.]
[Footnote 531: Ibid. p. 144, l. 22.]
[Footnote 532: On the copper-mines of Tamasus, see Strab. xiv. 6, § 5;
and Steph. Byz. ad voc.]
[Footnote 533: _Eponym Canon_, ll.s.c.]
[Footnote 534: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 228.]
[Footnote 535: Plut. _Vit. Solon._ § 26.]
[Footnote 536: Diod. Sic. xiv. 98, § 2.]
[Footnote 537: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 231.]
[Footnote 538: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 74.]
[Footnote 539: Gen. x. 4.]
[Footnote 540: Gesenius, _Mon. Script. Linquæque Phoeniciæ_, p. 278.]
[Footnote 541: Strab. xiv. 5, § 3.]
[Footnote 542: Ibid. xiv. 3, § 9. Mt. Solyma, now Takhtalu, is the most
striking mountain of these parts. Its bald summit rises to the height of
4,800 feet above the Mediterranean (Beaufort, _Karamania_, p. 57).]
[Footnote 543: Strab. xiv. 3, § 8, sub fin.]
[Footnote 544: Beaufort, _Karamania_, p. 31.]
[Footnote 545: Herod. iii. 90; vii. 77; Strab. xiii. 4, § 15; Steph.
Byz. ad. voc.]
[Footnote 546: Beaufort, _Karamania_, p. 56.]
[Footnote 547: Strab. xiv. 3, § 9.]
[Footnote 548: Beaufort, pp. 59, 60.]
[Footnote 549: Ibid. p. 70.]
[Footnote 550: As Corinna and Basilides (see Athen. _Deipnos_, iv.
174).]
[Footnote 551: Ap. Phot. _Bibliothec._ p. 454.]
[Footnote 552: Ap. Athen. _Deipn._ viii. 361.]
[Footnote 553: Dict. Cret. i. 18; iv. 4.]
[Footnote 554: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, pp. 80, 81.]
[Footnote 555: Aristid. _Orat._ § 43.]
[Footnote 556: Acts xxvii. 12.]
[Footnote 557: Steph. Byz. ad voc.]
[Footnote 558: Herod. iv. 151.]
[Footnote 559: Heb. {...}, Copt. _labo_, &c.]
[Footnote 560: Steph. Byz. ad voc. {KUTHERA}; Festus, ad voc. MELOS.]
[Footnote 561: Kenrick, p. 96.]
[Footnote 562: Steph. Byz. ad voc. {MEMBLIAROS}.]
[Footnote 563: Heraclid. Pont. ap. Steph. Byz. ad voc.]
[Footnote 564: Herod. iv. 147.]
[Footnote 565: Thucyd. i. 8.]
[Footnote 566: Herod. iii. 57; Pausan. x. 11.]
[Footnote 567: Tournefort, _Voyages_, i. 136.]
[Footnote 568: Plin, _H. N._ iv. 12. Compare Steph. Byz. ad voc.
{KUTHERA}.]
[Footnote 569: Theophrast. _Hist. Plant._ iv. 2; Plin. _H. N._ xxxv.
15.]
[Footnote 570: Strab. x. 5, § 16.]
[Footnote 571: Ibid. § 19, ad fin.]
[Footnote 572: Herod. ii. 44.]
[Footnote 573: Ibid. vi. 47.]
[Footnote 574: Hesych. ad voc. {KABEIROI}; Steph. Byz. ad voc. {IMBROS};
Strab. vii. Fr. 51.]
[Footnote 575: Strab. xiv. 5, § 28; Plin. _H. N._ vii. 56.]
[Footnote 576: Strab. x. 1, § 8.]
[Footnote 577: Herod. v. 57; Strab. ix. 2, § 3; Pausan. ix. 25, § 6,
&c.]
[Footnote 578: Steph. Byz. ad voc. {PRONEKTOS}; Scymn. Ch. l. 660.]
[Footnote 579: Apollon. Rhod. ii. l. 178; Euseb. _Præp. Ev._ p. 115;
Schol. ad Apollon. Rhod. l.s.c.; Steph. Byz. ad voc. {SESAMOS}.]
[Footnote 580: So Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, pp. 91, 92.]
[Footnote 581: Utica was said to have been founded 287 years before
Carthage (Aristot. _De Ausc. Mir._ § 146). Carthage was probably founded
about B.C. 850.]
[Footnote 582: Thucyd. vi. 2.]
[Footnote 583: Strab. xvii. 3, § 13.]
[Footnote 584: See the chart opposite, and the description in the
_Géographie Universelle_, xi. 271, 272.]
[Footnote 585: Ibid. p. 270.]
[Footnote 586: Plin. _H. N._ v. 4, § 23; _Géographie Universelle_, xi.
157.]
[Footnote 587: _Géograph. Univ._ xi. 275.]
[Footnote 588: Ibid. p. 274.]
[Footnote 589: _Géograph. Univ._ xi. 413, 414.]
[Footnote 590: Ibid. pp. 410, 411.]
[Footnote 591: See Davis’s _Carthage_, pp. 128-130; and compare the
woodcut in the _Géograph. Univ._ xi. 259.]
[Footnote 592: Beulé, _Fouilles à Carthage_, quoted in the _Géograph.
Univ._ xi. 258.]
[Footnote 593: “Adrymes” is the Greek name (Strab. xvii. 3, § 16),
Adrumetum or Hadrumetum, the Roman one (Sall. _Bell. Jugurth._ § 19;
Liv. xxx. 29; Plin. _H. N._ v. 4, § 25).]
[Footnote 594: _Géograph. Univ._ xi. 227, 228.]
[Footnote 595: Ibid. p. 227, note.]
[Footnote 596: _Géographie Universelle_, xi. 224.]
[Footnote 597: _Géograph. Univ._ xi. 84.]
[Footnote 598: Strabo, xvii. 3, § 18.]
[Footnote 599: See Della Cella, _Narrative_, p. 37, E. T.; Beechey,
_Narrative_, p. 51.]
[Footnote 5100: Herod. iv. 198. Compare Ovid. _Pont._ ii. 7, 25.]
[Footnote 5101: See the chart in the _Géographie Universelle_, xi. 223.]
[Footnote 5102: Strab. xvii. 3, § 12.]
[Footnote 5103: See Daux, _Recherches sur les Emporia Phéniciens_, pp.
256-258; and compare Pl. viii.]
[Footnote 5104: At Utica, Carthage, and elsewhere.]
[Footnote 5105: Daux, _Recherches_, pp. 169-171; Perrot et Chipiez,
_Histoire de l’Art dans l’Antiquité_, iii. 400-402.]
[Footnote 5106: Thucyd. vi. 2.]
[Footnote 5107: Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_, iii. 336.]
[Footnote 5108: Diod. Sic. xiv. 68.]
[Footnote 5109: Gesenius, _Monumenta Phoenicia_, pp. 297, 298, and Tab.
39, xii. A, B.]
[Footnote 5110: Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_, iii. 330.]
[Footnote 5111: Polyb. i. 55.]
[Footnote 5112: Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_, iii. 331.
Compare the accompanying woodcut.]
[Footnote 5113: Perrot et Chipiez, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. 334; Woodcuts,
No. 242 and 243.]
[Footnote 5114: Marsala, whose wine is so well known, occupies a site on
the coast at a short distance.]
[Footnote 5115: _Géographie Universelle_, i. 552.]
[Footnote 5116: _Géographie Universelle_, i. p. 551.]
[Footnote 5117: See Gesenius, _Monumenta Phoenicia_, pp. 288-290, and
Tab. 38, ix. Mahanath corresponds to the Greek {skenai} and the Roman
_castra_. Compare the Israelite “Mahanaim.”]
[Footnote 5118: Serra di Falco, _Antichità di Sicilia_, v. 60, 67.]
[Footnote 5119: Perrot et Chipiez, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. 187-189.]
[Footnote 5120: Ibid. p. 426.]
[Footnote 5121: _Géographie Universelle_, i. 571.]
[Footnote 5122: Gesenius, _Monumenta Phoenicia_, p. 298.]
[Footnote 5123: Diod. Sic. v. 12.]
[Footnote 5124: See the _Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum_, vol. i. No.
132.]
[Footnote 5125: Gesenius, _Mon. Phoen._ Tab. 40, xiv.]
[Footnote 5126: For an account of these buildings, called by the natives
“Giganteja,” see Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_, iii. 297, 298.]
[Footnote 5127: Ibid.]
[Footnote 5128: Ibid. p. 299. [Footnote 5129: “Malte, l’île de miel”
(_Géogr. Univ._ i. 576).]
[Footnote 5130: {Kunidia, a kalousi Melitaia} (Strab. vi. 2, § 11, sub
fin.).]
[Footnote 5131: Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_, iv. 2.]
[Footnote 5132: Diod. Sic. xiv. 63, § 4; 77, § 6; xxi. 16, &c.]
[Footnote 5133: Perrot et Chipiez, l.s.c. Compare the _Géographie
Universelle_, i. 599, 600.]
[Footnote 5134: Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 233; La Marmora, _Voyage en
Sardaigne_, ii. 171-341.]
[Footnote 5135: Strabo calls the town Sulchi ({Soulkhoi}, v. 2, § 7).]
[Footnote 5136: Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 231, 232, 253, &c.]
[Footnote 5137: None of the classical geographers mentions the place
excepting Ptolemy, who calls it “Tarrus” (_Geograph._ iii. 3).]
[Footnote 5138: See Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_, iii.
231-236, and 418-421.]
[Footnote 5139: Herod. i. 166.]
[Footnote 5140: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 116; Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 46,
186.]
[Footnote 5141: _Géographie Universelle_, i. 800.]
[Footnote 5142: Strab. iii. 5, § 1.]
[Footnote 5143: Kenrick, p. 118; _Géogr. Univ._ i. 795.]
[Footnote 5144: “Un admirable port natured divisé par des ilôts et des
péninsules en cales et en bassins secondairs; tous les avantages se
trouvent réunis dans ce bras de mer” (_Géographie Universelle_, i.
808).]
[Footnote 5145: Ibid. p. 801.]
[Footnote 5146: Ibid. p. 799.]
[Footnote 5147: {Phoinikike to skhemati} (Strab. iii. 4, § 2).]
[Footnote 5148: {Phoinikon ktisma} (ib. iii. 4, § 3).]
[Footnote 5149: Gesenius, _Mon. Phoen._ pp. 308-310; Tab. 40, xvi.]
[Footnote 5150: Strab. iii. 4, § 2.]
[Footnote 5151: Ibid.]
[Footnote 5152: Ibid. iii. 4, § 6.]
[Footnote 5153: Three hundred, according to some writers (Ibid. xvii. 3,
§ 3).]
[Footnote 5154: Plin. _H. N._ xix. 4.]
[Footnote 5155: Gesenius, _Mon. Phoen._ pp. 309, 310.]
[Footnote 5156: _Géograph. Univ._ xi. 710-713.]
[Footnote 5157: Strab. ii. 3, § 4; Hanno, _Peripl._ § 6; Scylax,
_Peripl._ § 112.]
[Footnote 5158: See _Géograph. Univer._ xi. 714.]
[Footnote 5159: Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_, iii. 337.]
[Footnote 5160: Ibid. p. 339.]
[Footnote 5161: Ibid. p. 341.]
[Footnote 5162: See Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 118; Dyer, in Smith’s _Dict.
of Greek and Roman Geography_, ii. 1106.]
[Footnote 5163: Scymn. Ch. ll. 100-106; Strabo, iii. 2, § 11; Mela,
_De Situ Orbis_, ii. 6; Plin. _H. N._ iv. 21; Fest. Avien. _Descriptio
Orbis_, l. 610; Pausan. vi. 19.]
[Footnote 5164: Stesichorus, _Fragmenta_ (ed. Bergk), p. 636; Strab.
l.s.c.]
[Footnote 5165: Scymn. Ch. l.s.c.]
[Footnote 5166: See Herod. i. 163.]
[Footnote 5167: 1 Kings x. 22.]
[Footnote 5168: Strab. iii. 2, § 8; _Géograph. Univ._ i. 741-745.]
[Footnote 5169: Strab. iii. 2, § 11.]
[Footnote 5170: Kenrick, _Phoenicia_, p. 119.]
[Footnote 5171: Strab. iii. 2, § 7.]
[Footnote 5172: Aristoph. _Ran._ l. 476; Jul. Pollux, vi. 63.]
[Footnote 5173: Vell. Paterc. i. 2.]
[Footnote 5174: _Géograph. Univ._ i. 756-758.]
[Footnote 5175: Ibid. p. 758.]
[Footnote 5176: Strab. iii. 5, § 5; Diod. Sic. v. 20; Scymn. Ch. 160;
Mela, iii. 6, § 1; Plin. _H. N._ v. 19; &c.]
[Footnote 5177: Gesen. _Mon. Phoen._ pp. 304, 370.]
[Footnote 5178: Strabo, iii. 5, § 3.]
[Footnote 5179: See the _Géographie Universelle_, i. 759.]
[Footnote 5180: The name is to be connected with the words Baal, Belus,
Baalath, &c. There was a river “Belus,” in Phoenicia Proper.]
[Footnote 5181: Gesenius, _Monumenta Phoenicia_, pp. 311, 312.]
[Footnote 5182: Ibid. p. 311.]
[Footnote 5183: I.e. towards the north-east, in the Propontis and the
Euxine.]
VI--ARCHITECTURE
[Footnote 61: Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art dans l’Antiquité_,
iii. 101.]
[Footnote 62: See Renan, _Mission de Phoenicie_, p. 92, and Planches, pl.
12.]
[Footnote 63: Ibid.]
[Footnote 64: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, pp. 62-68.]
[Footnote 65: Ibid. Planches, pl. 10.]
[Footnote 66: 1 Kings v. 17, 18.]
[Footnote 67: _Our Work in Palestine_, p. 115. Warren, _Recovery of
Jerusalem_, i. 121.]
[Footnote 68: See the _Corpus. Inscr. Semit._ Pars I. Planches, pl. 29,
No. 136.]
[Footnote 69: As at Sidon in the pier wall, and at Aradus in the remains
of the great wall of the town.]
[Footnote 610: M. Renan has found reason to question the truth of this
view. Bevelling, he thinks, may have begun with the Phoenicians; but it
became a general feature of Palestinian and Syrian architecture, being
employed in Syria as late as the middle ages. The enclosure of the
mosque at Hebron and the great wall of Baalbek are bevelled, but are
scarcely Phoenician.]
[Footnote 611: See Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, Planches, pl. vi.]
[Footnote 612: Compare the enclosure of the Haram at Jerusalem, the
mosque at Hebron, and the temples at Baalbek (Perrot et Chipiez,
_Histoire de l’Art_, iii. 105, No. 42; iv. 274, No. 139, and p. 186, No.
116).]
[Footnote 613: See Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 108, 299, &c.]
[Footnote 614: Renan, _Mission_, p. 822.]
[Footnote 615: See Renan, _Mission_, pp. 62-68; and compare Perrot et
Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_, iii. 242, 243.]
[Footnote 616: See Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 64.]
[Footnote 617: See Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, pp. 63, 64.]
[Footnote 618: Ibid. p. 65.]
[Footnote 619: See the volume of Plates published with the _Mission_,
pl. ix. fig 1.]
[Footnote 620: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 110; pl. xxxv. fig. 20; xxxvi.
fig. 7; xxxvii. figs. 10, 11; Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_,
iii. pp. 124, 428, 533, &c.]
[Footnote 621: Renan, _Mission_, Planches, pl. ix. fig. 3.]
[Footnote 622: See Perrot et Chipie, _Histoire de l’Art_, iii. 253, No.
193; p. 310, No. 233.]
[Footnote 623: See the author’s _History of Ancient Egypt_, i. 237.]
[Footnote 624: _Mission de Phénicie_, pp. 64, 65.]
[Footnote 625: See Di Cesnola’s _Cyprus_, pp. 210-212.]
[Footnote 626: The temple of Solomon was mainly of wood; that of Golgi
(Athiénau) was, it is thought, of crude brick (Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p.
139).]
[Footnote 627: See the plan in Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_,
iii. 267, No. 200. Explorations are now in progress, which, it is hoped,
may reveal more completely the plan of the building.]
[Footnote 628: As being the most important temple in the island.]
[Footnote 629: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 211.]
[Footnote 630: Ibid. p. 210.]
[Footnote 631: Ibid.]
[Footnote 632: Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 269.]
[Footnote 633: In M. Gerhard’s plan two circular ponds or reservoirs are
marked, of which General Di Cesnola found no trace.]
[Footnote 634: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 211.]
[Footnote 635: Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 322.]
[Footnote 636: As Di Cesnola, and Ceccaldi.]
[Footnote 637: Ceccaldi, as quoted by Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 275.]
[Footnote 638: Ceccaldi, _Monuments Antiques de Cypre_, pp. 47, 48.]
[Footnote 639: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 139.]
[Footnote 640: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 149; Perrot et Chipiez,
_Histoire de l’Art_, iii. 274; Ceccaldi, l.s.c.]
[Footnote 641: Di Cesnola, p. 139.]
[Footnote 642: Ibid. p. 140.]
[Footnote 643: Ibid. Compare Perrot et Chipiez, l.s.c.]
[Footnote 644: The only original account of this crypt is that of
General Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, pp. 303-305.]
[Footnote 645: Mephitic vapours prevented the workmen from continuing
their excavations.]
[Footnote 646: The length of this room was twenty feet, the breadth
nineteen feet, and the height fourteen feet (Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p.
304).]
[Footnote 647: Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_, iii. 285.]
[Footnote 648: See the woodcut representing a portion of the old wall of
Aradus, which is taken from M. Renan’s _Mission_, Planches, pl. 2.]
[Footnote 649: In some of the ruder walls, as in those of Banias and
Eryx, even this precaution is not observed. See Perrot et Chipiez,
_Histoire de l’Art_, iii. 328, 334.]
[Footnote 650: Diod. Sic. xxxii. 14.]
[Footnote 651: Arrian, _Exp. Alex._ ii. 21, § 3.]
[Footnote 652: Perrot et Chipiez, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. 331, 332, 339.]
[Footnote 653: Perrot et Chipiez, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. pp. 333, 334.]
[Footnote 654: See his _Recherches sur l’origine et l’emplacement des
Emporia Phéniciens_, pl. 8.]
[Footnote 655: Compare Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, pls. 7, 16, 18,
&c.; and Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 224.]
[Footnote 656: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 256, 260; Perrot et Chipiez,
_Hist. de l’Art_, iii. 219-221.]
[Footnote 657: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 255.]
[Footnote 658: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, pp. 255, 256.]
[Footnote 659: See Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 260; and compare Perrot et
Chipiez, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. 219, No. 155.]
[Footnote 660: Di Cesnola, p. 259.]
[Footnote 661: Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 224.]
[Footnote 662: See Ross, _Reisen nach Cypern_, pp. 187-189; and
_Archäologische Zeitung_ for 1851, pl. xxviii. figs. 3 and 4.]
[Footnote 663: They are not shown in Ross’s representation, but appear
in Di Cesnola’s.]
[Footnote 664: See Sir C. Newton’s _Halicarnassus_, pls. xviii. xix.]
[Footnote 665: 1 Macc. xiii. 27-29.]
[Footnote 666: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 80.]
[Footnote 667: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 81.]
[Footnote 668: Ibid. pp. 82, 85.]
[Footnote 669: See Robinson, _Researches in Palestine_, iii. 385.]
[Footnote 670: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 599.]
[Footnote 671: Perrot and Chipiez remark that “the general aspect of the
edifice recalls that of the great tombs at Amrith;” and conclude
that, “if the tomb does not actually belong to the time of Solomon’s
contemporary and ally, at any rate it is anterior to the Greco-Roman
period” (_Hist. de l’Art_, iii. 167).]
[Footnote 672: See the section of the building in Renan’s _Mission_,
Planches, pl. xlviii.]
[Footnote 673: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 71.]
[Footnote 674: Ibid. Planches, pl. 13.]
[Footnote 675: Ibid. p. 72.]
[Footnote 676: Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_, iii. 153.]
[Footnote 677: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, pp. 71-73.]
[Footnote 678: “Ce que ce tombeau offre de tout à fait particulier c’est
que l’entrée du caveau, ou, pour mieux dire, l’escalier qui y conduit,
est couvert, dans sa partie antérieure, par un énorme bloc régulièrement
taillé en dos d’âne et supporté par une assise de grosses pierres”
(Perrot et Chipiez, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. 154).]
[Footnote 679: Mark xvi. 3, 4.]
[Footnote 680: Perrot et Chipiez, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. 334.]
[Footnote 681: Perrot et Chipiez, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. 126, No. 68.]
[Footnote 682: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, pp. 211, 301.]
[Footnote 683: See Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_, iii.
129-134.]
[Footnote 684: _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 822.]
[Footnote 685: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 822.]
[Footnote 686: Renan, _Mission de Phénicie_, p. 829.]
VII--ÆSTHETIC ART
[Footnote 71: See Perrot et Chipiez, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. 404, and
compare pp. 428 and 437.]
[Footnote 72: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, pp. 129-157, &c.]
[Footnote 73: Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 510.]
[Footnote 74: Ibid. p. 513: “Les figures semblent avoir été taillées non
dans des blocs prismatiques, mais dans de la pierre débitée en carrière,
sous forme de dalles épaisses.”]
[Footnote 75: Di Cesnola, p. 150.]
[Footnote 76: Ibid. pp. 149, 150.]
[Footnote 77: Di Cesnola, p. 157.]
[Footnote 78: So both Di Cesnola (l.s.c) and Perrot et Chipiez, iii.
565.]
[Footnote 79: Perrot et Chipiez, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. Nos. 349, 385,
405, &c.; Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, pp. 133, 149, 157.]
[Footnote 710: Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 519, No. 353.]
[Footnote 711: Ibid. Nos. 323, 342, 368. Occasionally an arm is placed
across the breast without anything being clasped (Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_,
pp. 131, 240).]
[Footnote 712: Perrot et Chipiez, Nos. 299, 322, 373.]
[Footnote 713: Ibid. Nos. 291, 321, 379, 380.]
[Footnote 714: Ibid. Nos. 381, 382.]
[Footnote 715: Perrot et Chipiez, Nos. 306, 345, 349, &c.]
[Footnote 716: See Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, pp. 141, 230, 243, &c.]
[Footnote 717: Compare Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 530, No. 358; p. 533, No.
359; and Di Cesnola, pp. 131, 154, &c.]
[Footnote 718: Di Cesnola, pp. 129, 145; Perrot et Chipiez, pp. 527,
545.]
[Footnote 719: Di Cesnola, pp. 149, 151, 161, &c.]
[Footnote 720: Perrot et Chipiez, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. 201, No. 142;
p. 451, No. 323; p. 598, No. 409. The best dove is that in the hand of a
priest represented by Di Cesnola (_Cyprus_, p. 132).]
[Footnote 721: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 114.]
[Footnote 722: Ibid. p. 331; Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 203, and Pl. ii.
opp. p. 582.]
[Footnote 723: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 136; Ceccaldi, _Rev. Arch._ vol.
xxiv. pl. 21.]
[Footnote 724: Di Cesnola, p. 137.]
[Footnote 725: Ibid. p. 133.]
[Footnote 726: Ibid. pp. 110-114.]
[Footnote 727: See the _Story of Assyria_, p. 403; and compare _Ancient
Monarchies_, i. 395, 493.]
[Footnote 728: See _Story of Assyria_, l.s.c.; and for the classical
practice, which was identical, compare Lipsius, _Antiq. Lect._ iii.]
[Footnote 729: So it is in a garden that Asshurbani-pal and his queen
regale themselves (_Ancient Monarchies_, i. 493). Compare Esther i. 7.]
[Footnote 730: Perrot et Chipiez, _Hist. de l’Art_, iii. 620.]
[Footnote 731: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, pp. 259-267.]
[Footnote 732: Di Cesnola is in favour of Melkarth (p. 264); MM. Perrot
and Chipiez of Bes (_Hist. de l’Art_, iii. 610). Individually, I incline
to Esmun.]
[Footnote 733: See Di Cesnola, Pl. vi.; Perrot et Chipiez, iii. 450,
555, 557; Nos. 321, 379, 380, 381, and 382.]
[Footnote 734: Herod. iii. 37.]
[Footnote 735: Perrot et Chipiez see in it the travels of the deceased
in another world (_Hist. de l’Art_, iii. 612); but they admit that at
first sight one would be tempted to regard it as the representation of
an historical event, as the setting forth of a prince for war, or his
triumphant return.]
[Footnote 736: A similar crest was used by the Persians (_Ancient
Monarchies_, iii. 180, 234), and the Lycians (Fellows’s _Lycia_, pl.
xxi. oop. p. 173).]
[Footnote 737: Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art_, iii. 609-611.]
[Footnote 738: See the _Journal le Bachir_ for June 8, 1887, published
at Beyrout.]
[Footnote 739: 1 Kings vii. 14; 2 Chron. ii. 14.]
[Footnote 740: 1 Kings vii. 21.]
[Footnote 741: “_In_ the porch” (1 Kings vii. 21); “_before_ the house,”
“before the temple” (2 Chron. iii. 15, 17).]
[Footnote 742: 1 Kings vii. 15, 16.]
[Footnote 743: Jer. lii. 21.]
[Footnote 744: 1 Kings vii. 17, 20.]
[Footnote 745: Ibid. verse 20; 2 Chron. iv. 13; Jer. lii. 23.]
[Footnote 746: 1 Kings vii. 22.]
[Footnote 747: See Perrot et Chipiez, _Hist. de l’Art_, vol. iv. Pls.
vi. and vii. opp. pp. 318 and 320.]
[Footnote 748: 1 Kings vii. 23.]
[Footnote 749: Ibid. vv. 23-25.]
[Footnote 750: See the representation in Perrot et Chipiez, iv. 327, No.
172.]
[Footnote 751: Perrot et Chipiez, iv. 328.]
[Footnote 752: 1 Kings vii. 27-39.]
[Footnote 753: Ibid. verse 38.]
[Footnote 754: Ibid. verse 29.]
[Footnote 755: See the woodcut in Perrot et Chipiez, iv. 331, No. 173;
and compare 1 Kings vii. 31.]
[Footnote 756: 1 Kings vii. 36.]
[Footnote 757: 1 Kings vii. 33.]
[Footnote 758: Ibid. v. 40. Compare 2 Chron. iv. 16.]
[Footnote 759: See Di Cesnola’s _Cyprus_, Pls. xxi. and xxx.]
[Footnote 760: A single statue in bronze, of full size, or larger than
life, is said to have been exhumed in Cyprus in 1836 (Perrot et Chipiez,
iii. 514); but it has not reached our day.]
[Footnote 761: See the works of La Marmora (_Voyage en Sardaigne_), Cara
(_Relazione sugli idoli sardo-fenici_), and Perrot et Chipiez (_Hist. de
l’Art_, iv. 65-89).]
[Footnote 762: Perrot et Chipiez, iv. 65, 66.]
[Footnote 763: Ibid. pp. 67, 69, 88.]
[Footnote 764: Ibid. pp. 67, 70, 89.]
[Footnote 765: Ibid. 52, 74, 75, 87, &c.]
[Footnote 766: See Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, Pl. iv. opp. p. 84.]
[Footnote 767: Ibid. opp. p. 345.]
[Footnote 768: Ibid. p. 337.]
[Footnote 769: _Monumenti di cere antica_, Pl. x. fig. 1.]
[Footnote 770: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, p. 77.]
[Footnote 771: Di Cesnola, _Cyprus_, Pl. xi. opp. p. 114.]
[Footnote 772: In the museum of the Varvakeion. (See Perrot et Chipiez,
_Hist. de l’Art_, iii. 782-785.)]
[Footnote 773: Ibid. p. 783, No. 550.]
[Footnote 774: Compare the author’s _History of Ancient Egypt_, i. 362.]