« PoprzedniaDalej »
colonists in Africa, such as the Carthaginians, &c. This distinction, however, has no good ground on which to rest. The term botvireo, in Greek, comprises not only the Phoenicians, but also the Carthaginians as well as the other Poeni (Herod, 5, 46– Eurip., Troad., 222–Böckh, ad Pind., Pyth., 1, 72), a usage which is imitated by the Latin poets: thus we have in Silius Italicus (13,730) the form Phaenicium for Panorum, and (16, 25) Phaentz for Poenus. Indeed, the term Paenus is nothing more than bolvi; itself, adapted to the analogy of the Latin tongue; just as from the Greek Potviktoc comes the old Latin form Paenicus, found in Cato and Varro, and from this the more usual Punicus. (Compare carare and curare; mania, munia, and munire ; paena and punio.—Gesenius, l. c.—Festus, ed. Müller, p. 241, Fragm. e Cod. Farm., L. 16.)
2. History, Commerce, Arts, &c., of the Phoenicians.
The Phoenicians were a branch of that widely-extended race known by the common appellation of Aramaean or Semitic. To this great family the Hebrews and the Arabians belonged, as well as the inhabitants of the wide plain between the northern waters of the Euphrates and Tigris. The Phoenicians themselves, according to their own account, came originally from the shores of the Persian Gulf (Herod., 7, 89), and Strabo informs us, that in the isles of Tyrus and Aradus, in the gulf just named, were found temples similar to those of the Phoenicians, and that the inhabitants of these isles claimed the cities of Tyre and Aradus, on the coast of Phoenicia, as colonies of theirs. (Strabo, 766.) The establishment, indeed, of the earlier Phoenician race in the Persian Gulf, and the enterprising habits which always characterized this remarkable people, would seem to point to a very active commerce carried on in the Indian seas, at a period long antecedent to positive history, and may perhaps surnish some clew to the marks of early civilization that are discovered along the western shores of the American continent. (Compare Ritter, Erdkunde, vol. 2, p. 163.)—The loss of the Phoenician annals renders it difficult to investigate the history of this people. Our principal author: ities are the Hebrew writers of the second book of Kings, and Ezekiel and Isaiah. Herodotus, Josephus, and Strabo help to supply the deficiency. Incidental notices are found in other writers also. The Phoenician towns were probably independent states, with a small territory around them: the political union that existed among then till the era of the Persians, was preserved by a common religious worship. The town of Tyre seems to have had a kind of supremacy over the rest, being the richest city, and containing the temple of the national god, whom the Greeks call the Tyrian Hercules. The several cities were governed by supreme hereditary magistrates named kings. Hiram was king of Tyre, and a fricnd of Solomon, the king of Israel. When Xerxes invaded Greece, there was a King of Tyre, and also a King of Sidon in his army. (Herod., 8, 67.) We infer from a few passages of the ancient writers, and from the enterprising spirit of the Phoenicians, that the despotism of Asia did not exist among them. The Sidonians are the first people recorded in history who formed a commercial connexion between Asia and Europe; the articles which they manufactured, or procured from other parts of Asia, were distributed by them over the coasts of the Mediterranean. These long voyages led to colonial establishments, and to the diffusion of the useful arts. The island of Cyprus contained Phoenician colonies: they established themselves in many of the small islands of the Archipelago, particularly in those where the precious metals were sound. The island of Thasus exhibited, in the time of Herodotus, manifest traces of their excavations. (Herod., 6, 47.) With the early Greeks of the main land the Phoeni
cians had occasional commercial connexions: they furnished the natives with trinkets and female ornaments, and sometimes carried off the people. (Herod., 1, 1.) Slave-dealing was one source of wealth to the Tyrians (Ezekiel xxvii., 12); the simple narrative of Eumaeus, in the 15th book of the Odyssey, presents a natural picture of this practice. We know nothing of Phoenician settlements in Italy; but they occupied Sicily before the Greeks, and retired towards the western parts, as the nation became more numerous and powerful in the island. (Thucyd., 6, 2.) The great object of the enterprise of the Phoenicians, and the seat of their chief colonial establishments, was the southern part of Spain, or the modern province of Andalusia. The silver-mines and the gold-dust of the peninsula made Spain to the Tyrians what Peru once was to the Spaniards. Not far from the mouths of the Baetis are two small islands: on one of these the Tyrians founded the city of Gadeira or Gades, Cadiz, and built a temple to their national god, which existed even in the age of Strabo, and was justly considered a curious monument of antiquity. The advantageous situation of Gades, west of the Pillars of Hercules, and on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, would naturally lead to voyages of discovery ; but these were always confined to coasting. Of these voyages no records are preserved. The Phoenicians are said to have supplied the Greeks and the Asiatics with two articles, which are supposed to indicate an acquaintance with the southwestern angle of Britain and the coast of Prussia, on the Baltic Sea. These were tin and amber. With regard to the first, however, though there can be little doubt that the Phoenicians, and the Romans long aster them, traded for it to the Cassiterides, or Scilly Isles, yet the Greeks, in all probability, obtained their supply of it by an overland trade from India. (Wid. India.) The amber certainly came from the shores of the Baltic, but whether it was obtained by actual sailing thither, or procured by an overland trade at the head-waters of the Adriatic, remains, among modern scholars, a disputed point. An argument in favour of the former of these opinions may be " drawn from the fact of the Phoenicians' having been acquainted with the existence of the Rodaun, a small river near Dantzic, on the Prussian coast. (Wid. Eridanus.)—The connexion between the parent city of Tyre and her distant possessions in Europe and Asrica was probably only a commercial one. Whatever might have been their original condition, they were independent places in the time of Herodotus (1,163). The Phoenician colonies on the northern coast of Africa were at least as old as the settlements in the south of Spain. They were situated in a fertile region, which, by its position, formed, between Central Africa and the shores of the Mediterranean, a point of union similar to that which Tyre furnished between Asia and Europe. Utica was the first establishment on the African coast: Carthage, called by the Greeks Carchedon, was the next: other towns afterward sprung up. For the history of Phoenician commerce, particularly the commerce with Asia, we possess a most valuable document in the 27th chapter of Ezekiel. The Hebrew prophet lived at the time of the greatest splendour of Tyre, before her Eastern conquerors diminished her traffic and deprived her of national independence. At an earlier period, the Phoenicians had friendly connexions with the Hebrews. Solomon, the most powerful of their kings, made Jerusalem, during his life, the centre of Eastern magnificence and wealth. The Tyrians gladly formed an alliance with this potentate, and by his permission obtained the navigation of the Red Sea. The town of Eziongeber, which Solomon had taken from the people of Edom, was the point to which the Tyrian and Hebrew navies brought the gold and precious stones of
Ophir. The Phoenicians also established trading-posts
on the west side of the Persian Gulf. Here the ancient geographers placed the isles of Aradus and Tyrus, to which the Tyrians brought the products of India. They were taken by the caravans across the Arabian desert to Tyre on the Mediterranean, at that time the great mart of the world.—A commercial road between Tyre and the Euphrates would be necessary to diffuse the products of Tyrian industry and commerce, and also to procure the valuable wool furnished by the nomadic tribes. In the Syrian desert, about three days’ journey from the old sord of the Euphrates, modern travellers behold with astonishment the magnificent and extensive ruins of Palmyra. The Arabs of the desert still call it Tadmor, and attribute these buildings to the magic power of Solomon. We are told that Solomon built Baleth and Tadinor in the wilderness. The latter was no doubt intended as a
eat entrepôt between the Euphrates and the sea. ts situation, and the possession of springs of water in an arid desert, would not sail to attract a prince so wise as Solomon, and a merchant with such extensive dealings as Hiram.—From the mountains of Armenia, the Tyrians procured copper and slaves: the regions of the Caucasus, at the present day, supply the harems of the Turks and Persians with the females of Georgia and Circassia.—The Phoenicians seem, in the earlier ages, not to have had very extensive dealings with the Egyptians: but cotton and cotton cloths are enumerated among the articles which they received from Egypt. When Thebes, in Upper Egypt, ceased to be the place of resort for the caravans of Africa and Asia, the favourable situation of Memphis, at the apex of the Delta, made it the chief mart of Egypt; and the Tyrians who traded there were so numerous, that a part of the city was inhabited by them.—Grain of various kinds was carried to Tyre from the country of the Hebrews and other parts of Syria. Solomon gave Hiram wheat and oil; and the Tyrian, in exchange, sur. nished him with the pines and cedars of Libanus.— The commercial intercourse between the Greeks and Tyrians appears never to have been great : the two trading nations of the Mediterranean were probably jealous of one another; and, besides this, their colonies led them in different directions. Sicily was the point where the Greek and Tyrian merchant met in competition. When the Phoenicians were obliged to submit to the Persians, we find their navy willingly and actively employed against their commercial rivals. —Tyre was, before the era of the Persians, the centre of the traffic of the ancient world: in her markets were found the products of all the countries between India and Spain, between the extremity of the great peninsula of sandy Arabia, and the snowy summits of Caucasus. Her vessels were found in the Mediterranean, on the Atlantic, and in the Indian Ocean. There was even a tradition, that in the time of Necho, king of Egypt, some Tyrian ships, at the desire of that king, sailed down the Red Sea; and, after circumnavigating the continent of Africa, entered the Mediterranean at the Strait of Gibraltar. (Wid. Africa.)—The Phoenicians furnished the world with several articles produced by their own industry and skill. The dyed cloths of Sidon, and the woven vests and needlework of Phoenician women, were in high repute among the ancient Greeks. The name of Tyrian purple is familiar, even in modern times; but it is a mistake to suppose that a single colour is to be understood: deep red and violet colours were those which were most highly prized. The liquor of a shellfish, that was found in abundance on their coast, supplied them with the various colours denominated purple. (Plin., 9, 36.) It was principally woollen cloths the Tyrians used to dye, though cotton and linen dyed garments are mentioned .*. Phoenicians are said to have possessed the art of making glass: it is probable they had manufactured this article for many centuries at Sidon and
Sarephta. Little trinkets and ornaments were also made by this people. The Phoenician merchant offers for sale to the females of Syria a string of amber beads with gold ornaments. (Hom., Od., 14, 459.) The ivory, which they procured from AFthiopia and India, received new forms under the skilful hands of the Tyrians; and all the costly decorations of Solomon's temple were made under the direction of an artist of Tyre, whose mother was “a woman of the daughters of Dan, and his father a man of Tyre.” (Chronicles, 2, 1, 14; 2, 4, 17-Long's Ancient Geography, p. 3, seqq.— Heeren, Ideen, vol. 2, p. 1, seqq.)
3. Decline of Phanician Commerce.
The Phoenicians, from what has just been remarked, were then a manufacturing and a trading people, depending on others for their subsistence, in some points resembling the English, in others more like the Dutch. The prosperity of such a people could not be everlasting, and it is interesting to examine into the causes of their decline. It is probable that the increase of the wealth and power of Carthage was in some degree prejudicial to the parent state, as the trade of Spain must have fallen, in a great measure, into the hands of the former. In such a case, it is likely that the Phoenicians must have had to pay dearer for its productions than heretofore, and perhaps, as Carthage and the other colonies were manufacturers also, the demand for Phoenician goods decreased. It is also supposed, that the Phoenicians must have suffered by the planting of the Grecian colonies on the coast of Asia Minor, as these likewise manufactured to a great extent, and, it is almost certain, traded directly, by means of caravans, with Thapsacus on the Euphrates, to which place the goods of Babylon and India were brought up the river. We doubt, however, if they interfered much with the Phoenicians, as their trade took chiefly a northern direction, extending into Tartary, and perhaps to China. The settlement of the Greeks in Egypt, however, must have been positively injurious to them, as the winetrade of that country, of which they appear before this to have had the monopoly, must have been now, in great measure, carried on by the Greeks in their own bottoms; and perhaps this is the true reason of the hostility which the Phoenicians are said to have evinced to the Greeks in the time of the Persian war. It is remarkable enough, that in the accounts which we have of the trade of Athens and Corinth, no mention is made of any with the Phoenicians. Perhaps their chief commerce was with the colonies in Asia. From the Hebrew prophet it appears that they traded with the Ionians (of Asia) and with the people of the Peloponnesus. The rivalry just noted, however, could have but little affected the prosperity of the Phoenicians. The real cause of their decline was the commotions that took place in Western Asia, which caused the downfall of so many states; for independent states are always better customers to a manusacturing people than those which are under the yoke of foreigners. While the kingdoms of Israel, Judah, Damascus, and others flourished, the demand for Phoenician manufactures must have been far greater than aster they became subject to the monarchs of Babylon and Persia. Let any one, for example, compare Judah under, her kings with Judah after the return from captivity. The very circumstance of there being no court must have made a great difference to those who supplied them with luxuries. The conquest and reduction to provinces of Babylonia and Egypt by the Persian monarch must have greatly affected the Phoenician commerce; but it was the soundation of Alexandrea by the Macedonian conqueror which proved the ruin of the trade of both Phoenicia and Babylon, just as the discovery of the passage to India by the &: of Good Hope ruined, in a great measure, Bagdad, Alexandrea, and Venice—the Tyre of the middle ages. F§: that time
the decline of the prosperity of the towns on the coast of Phoenicia was rapid and irremediable. (Foreign Quarterly Review, No. 27, p. 211, seq.)
4. Did Phanicia give an alphabet to Greece
On this point, though for a long time made the subject of learned discussion, there is now no room for dispute. The names of most of the letters, their order, and the forms which they exhibit in the most ancient monuments, all confirm the truth of the tradition, that the Greek alphabet was derived from the Phoenician ; and every doubt on this head, which a hasty view of it, in its later state, might suggest, has long since received the most satisfactory solution. Several changes were necessary to adapt the Eastern characters to a foreign and totally different language. The powers of those which were unsuited to the Greek organs were exchanged for others which were wanting in the Phoenician alphabet; some elements were finally rejected as superfluous from the written language, though they were retained for the purpose of numeration ; and, in process of time, the peculiar demands of the Greek language were satisfied by the invention of some new signs. The alterations which the figures of the Greek characters underwent may be partly traced to the inversion of their position, which took place when the Greeks instinctively dropped the Eastern practice of writing from right to left; a change the gradual progress of which is visible in several extant inscriptions. This fact, therefore, is established by evidence, which could scarcely borrow any additional weight from the highest classical authority. But the epoch at which the Greeks received their alphabet from the Phoenicians is a point as to which we cannot expect to find similar proof; and the event is so remote, that the testimony even of the best historians cannot be deemed sufficient immediately to remove all doubt upon the question. A statement, however, deserving of attention, both on account of its author, and of its internal marks of diligent and thoughtful inquiry, is given by Herodotus. The Phoenicians, he relates, who came with Cadmus to Thebes, introduced letters, along with other branches of knowledge, among the Greeks: the characters were at first precisely the same as those which the Phoenicians continued to use in his own day; but their powers and form were gradually changed, first by the Phoenician colonists themselves, and afterward by the Greeks of the adjacent region, who were Ionians. These, as they received their , letters from Phoenician teachers, named them Phaenician letters; and the historian adds, that, in his own time, the Ionians called their books or rolls, though made from the Egyptian papyrus, skins, because this was the material which they had used at an earlier period, as many barbarous nations even then continued to do. It cannot be denied that this account appears, at first sight, perfectly clear and probable ; and yet there are some points in it which, on closer inspection, raise a suspicion of its accuracy. The vague manner in which Herodotus describes the Ionians, who were neighbours of the Phoenician colony, seems to imply that what he says of them is not grounded on any direct tradition, but is a mere hypothesis or inference. The fact which he appears to have ascertained is, that the Asiatic Ionians, who were, according to his own view, a very mixed race, were beforehand with the other Greeks in the art of writing: they called their books or rolls by a name which probably expressed the Phoenician word for the same thing, and they described their alphabet by the epithet which marked its Oriental origin. But, as the historian thought he had suscient grounds for believing that it had been first communicated to the Greeks by the Phoenician colony at Thebes, he concludes that the Asiatic Ionians must have received it, not directly from the Phoenicians, but through their European forefathers. Still, if this was
the process by which he arrived at his conclusion, it would not follow that he was in error. But if we examiné the only reasons which he assigns for his belief that the most ancient Greek alphabet was found at Thebes, we find that they are such as we cannot rely on, though to him they would seem perfectly demonstrative. He produces three inscriptions in verse, which he had seen himself, engraved on some vessels in a temple at Thebes, and in characters which he calls Cadmaan, and which he says nearly resembled the Io-r nian. These inscriptions purported to record donations made to the temple before the Trojan war, aud to be contemporaneous with the acts which they recorded. And that they were really ancient need not be questioned, though imitations of an obsolete mode of writing were not uncommon in Greece; but their genuineness cannot be safely assumed as the ground of an argument. Other grounds he may indeed have had ; but, since he does not mention them, they are to us none, and we are left to form our own judgment on the disputed question of the Cadmaan colony at Thebes. (Thirlwall's Greece, vol. 1, p. 238, seq.) We have already, in a previous article (vid. Cadmus), shown the utter improbability of any Phoenician colony under Cadmus, i have traced this latter name to a Pelasgic origin. In this way, perhaps, the two traditions may be reconciled; one of which makes the Phoenicians to have introduced letters into Greece, while the other states that they were previously known to, and invented by the Pelasgi. It is probable that two distinct periods of time are here alluded to, an earlier and a later introduction of them; in both instances, however, from Phoenicia. When the alphabet of this country was first brought in, its use may have been extremely limited ; it may have come in, as Knight supposes, with the first Pelasgic settlers, who may have brought an alphabet much less perfect, and, therefore, probably more ancient than the so-called Cadmaan. The second introduction of letters found the Greeks, in all likelihood, much more advanced in civilization, and it therefore took a firmer hold, and became the subject of more established and general tradition. (Consult Knight, Analytical Essay on the Greek Alphabet, p. 120. —Sandford, Remarks on Thiersch's Gr. Gr., p. 6. — Hug, die Erfindung der Buchstabenschrift, p. 7.)
5. Remains of the Phanician Language.
The remains of the Phoenician language at the present day consist of 1. Coins and inscriptions. 2. Glosses and Phaenician proper names, occurring in the Greek and Latin writers. 3. A Phoenician passage of considerable length (together with some shorter specimens) in the Poenulus of Plautus.-The coins and inscriptions give us the written forms of the language with great accuracy, but throw no light on the sounds of the Phoenician tongue or its system of pronunciation, since in almost every instance the vowels are omitted. The ablest work on these is that of Gesenius, entitled “Scriptura Linguarque Phanica Mokumenta quotguot supersunt,” &c., Lips., 1837, 4to.— On the other hand, the Punic words that occur in the Greek and Roman writers, give, it is true, a sound expressed in the characters of those languages, and show us with what vowels they were enunciated by the Phoenicians: still, however, there is often very great difficulty in tracing back these same words to a Phoenician orthography, since the common or vulgar mode of pronouncing was accustomed to contract certain forms, and to neglect in others the letters that were necessary to indicate the etymology of the term.—The most curious remnant, however, of the Phoenician tongue is the passage, already referred to, in Plautus. It occurs in the first scene of the fifth act of the Paenulus, and consists of ten entire Punic verses, expressed
in Latin characters (for the remaining six are Liby
Phoenician, or, as some think, vulgar Punic), to which are to be added fourteen short sentences, intermingled with a Latin dialogue, in the second and third scenes. Modern scholars have, at various times, exercised their skill in remodelling and explaining these specimens of the Phoenician, and in attempting to recall them to the analogy of the Hebrew tongue. Some have confined their attention to particular words or individual sentences, such as Joseph Scaliger (ad fragm. Graecorum, p. 32), Aldrete (Antiguedades, p. 207), Selden (de Dis Syris, proleg., c. 2), Le Moyne (Varia Sacra, p. 100, 113), Hyde (ad Peritsol., p. 45), Remesius ("Iatopovfueva lingua Punica, c. 12), Tychsen (Nov. Act. Upsal., vol. 7, p. 100, seq.), and many others, enumerated by Fabricius (Bibl. Lat., vol. 1, p. 5), and by the Bipont editor of Plautus (vol. 1, p. xix.). A smaller number have undertaken to interpret all the Punic specimens contained in the three scenes alluded to. The first of these was Petitus (Petit), who, in his work entitled “Miscellanearum Libri movem”(p.58, seqq., Paris, 1640, 4to), endeavoured to mould the Punic of the three scenes into Hebrew, and gave a translation of thern in Latin. Pareus, who came after, also exhibited the Punic of Plautus in a Hebrew dress, and even added vowel points; but the whole is done so carelessly and strangely, that the words resemble Chinese and Mongul as much as they do Hebrew. This was in the first and second editions of his Plautus. In the third, however, he adopted the interpretation of Petitus, and even enlarged upon it in a poetical paraphrase. Many subsequent editors of Plautus have followed in the same path, such as Boxhorn, Operarius, Gronovius, and Ernesti. Sixteen years after Petitus, the learned Bochart published the result of his labours on the Punic of the first scene, in his Sacred Geography (Camaan, 2, 6), and executed the task with so much learning and ability, that, during nearly two centuries, until the explanation given by Gesenius in 1837, though there may have been some who have given more probable interpretations of particular phrases and words, no one was found more successful in explaining the passage as a whole. (Gesen., Phaen. Mon., p. 359.) Clericus (Le Clerc) closely follows the interpretation of Bochart (Biblioth. Univ. et Hist., vol. 9, p. 256), though he errs in thinking that each verse consists of two hemistichs, which have a similarity of ending. Passing over some others who have written on this same subject, we come to the three most recent ex$. of this much-contested passage; namely,
ellermann (Versuch einer Erklärung der Punischen Stellen im Paenulus des Plautus. Stuck, 1–3, Berlin, 1806–1808, ed. 2, 1812), Count de Robiano (Etudes sur l'ecriture, &c., suinies d'un essai sur la langue Punique, Paris, 1834, 4to), and Gesenius (Phaen. Mon., p. 366, seqq.). The first two, abandoning the true view of the subject, as taken by Bochart, regard the whole sixteen verses as Punic, and endeavour, after the example of Petitus, to adapt them, by every possible expedient, to the analogy of the Hebrew tongue. Bellermann, however, in doing this, confines himself within the regular limits of Hebraism, whereas Robiano calls in to his aid, at one time the Syriac, at another the Arabic, and discovers also many peculiarities in the structure of the Punic language, of which no one dreamed before, and the sole authority for which is found in his own imagination. The explanation of Gesenius, as may readily be inferred from his known roficiency in Oriental scholarship, is now regarded as . borne away the palm, though some parts have been made the subject of criticism by the learned of his own country. (Gesen., Phaen. Mon., p. 366. — Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik, 1839, p. 539, seqq.)—The writers thus far mentioned have, with the exception, perhaps, of Robiano, attempted to illustrate the Punic of Plautus by a reference to the Hebrew, occasionally calling in the Chaldee and Syriac. This
undoubtedly is the more correct course, and far supe rior to the plan pursued by those who have had recourse to the Arabic, as, for example, Casiri (Bibl. Escurial., vol. 2, p. 27), or to the Maltese idiom, as Agius de Soldanis (Dissertazione cioë vera spiegazione della scena della comedia di Plauto in Paenulo, Rom., 1751, 4to.) Another class of writers hardly deserve mention. They are those dreaming visionaries, who call in to their aid the Irish language! such as Wallancey (Essay on the Antiq. of the Irish Lang., Dublin, 1722, 8vo; Lond, 1808, 8vo), O'Connor (Chronicles of Eri, &c., from the original MSS. in the Phaenician dialect (!) of the Scythian language, London, 1822, 2 vols. 8vo), Villaneuva, (Phoenician Ireland, translated by H. O'Brien, Lond, 1833, 8vo), or who have resource to the Basque, as De l'Ecluse (Grammaire Basque, Toulouse, 1826, 8vo), and Santa Teresa (Robiano, Etudes, &c., p. 78.-Gesenius, Pha:nic. Mon., p. 357, seqq).
6. General character of the Phanician tongue.
That the Phoenician or Punic language was closely allied to the Hebrew, we learn from the express testimony of St. Jerome and St. Augustine. The latter, in particular, is a very high authority on this subject, since he lived in Africa at a period when the Punic tongue was still spoken in that country, and since, in one part of his writings, he even acknowledges himself to be of Punic origin. (Contra Julian., lib. 3, c. 17.). On another occasion, referring to the Hebrew and Punic, he remarks, “Ista lingua non multum inter se differunt.” (Quast, in Jud., lib. 7, qu. 16. – Op., ed. Benedict., vol. 3, p. 477.) So again, speaking of our Saviour, he says, “Hunc Hebraei dicunt Messiam, quod perbum lingua Punica consonum est, sicut alia permulta et pane omnia.” (Contra lit. Petil., 2, 104 – Op., vol. 9, col. 198.) Again, in another part of his writings, he observes, “Cognata quippe sunt lingua ista: et vicinae, Hebraea, Punica et Syra.” (In Joann., tract. 15. – Op., vol. 3, col. 302) In commenting on the words of our Saviour (Serm., 35), where he explains what is meant by the term “Mammon,” he says, “Hebraeum verbum est, cognatum lingua, Punica : ista enim lingua significationis quadam ricinitate sociantur.” To the same effect St. Jerome : “Tyrus et Sidon in Phoenices litore principes ciritates, &c. Quarum Carthago colonia. Unde et Patni sermone corrupto quasi Phaeni appellantur. Quarum lingua lingua Hebratae magna cz parte confinis est.” (In Jerem, 5, 25.) So again, “Linguá quoque Punică, qua de Hebræorum fontibus manare dicitur, proprie virgo alma appellatur.” (In Jes, 3, 7.)—Modern scholars, as many as have turned their attention to the subject, have come to the same conclusion, although on one point there exists among them a great difference of opinion. Some of them maintain, for instance, that, with the exception of a slight difference in the mode of writing and pronouncing, the Phoenician was identical with the Hebrew, and free from any forms derived from the cognate dialects. (Tychsen, Comment. de ling. Phoen, et Hebr. mutua aqualitate, p. 89.—Akerblad, de Inscr. Oxon., p. 26. —Fabricy, de Phoen. lit. fontibus, p. 29, 221–Gesenius, Gesch. der Hebr. Sprache, &c., p. 229.) Others affirm, that the Phoenician is like the Hebrew, it is true; but, at the same time, intermingled with Arabic, Syriac, Chaldee, and Samaritan forms. Among these latter may be mentioned Bochart, Mazocchi, Clericus, Sappuhn, Peyron, and Hamaker. The last-mentioned writer, indeed, exceeds all bounds, and blends, in his explanations, all the Semitic tongues, so that he forms for himself a Phoenician language very far removed from the true one. (Hamaker, Diatrib., p. 65–Id., Miscell. Phoen., praf, p. viii., &c.)—If we follow the authority of Gesenius, and we do not know a safer one to take for our guide, the chief * in the
Phoenician language may be briefly stated as follows: 1. The Phoenician agrees in most, if not all, respects with the Hebrew, whether we regard roots, or the mode of forming and inflecting words.-2. Wherever the usage of the earlier writers of the Old Testament differs from that of the later ones, the Phoenician agrees with the latter rather than with the former–3. Only a few words are sound that savour of Aramaeism, nor will more Aramaeisms be found in the remains of the Phoenician language than in the books of the Old Testament.—4. There are still sewer resemblances to Arabism. The most remarkable of these is in the case of the article, which on one occasion occurs under the full forum al, and often under that of a, though most frequently it coincides with the Hebrew form.—Other words, which now can only be explained through the medium of the Arabic, were undoubtedly, at an earlier eriod, equally with many atta: Žeyóueva of the Old Testament, not less Hebrew than Arabic.—5. Among the peculiarities of the Phoenician and Punic tongues, the following may be noted: (a) A defective mode of orthography, in which the matres lectionis are employed as sparingly as possible. (b) In pronouncing, the Phoenicians (the Carthaginians certainly) expressed the long o by it; as, sufes, lu, alonuth, &c. (c) Instead of Segol and Schwa mobile, they appear to have employed an obtuse kind of sound, which the Roman writers expressed by the vowel y; as, yth (Hebrew eth, the mark of the accusative), ynnynu (ecce tum), &c. (d) The syllable al they contracted into o, analogous somewhat to the French cheval (chevau), chevawz. For other peculiarities consult Gesenius (Phaen. Mon., p. 336). Phoe Nici A. Vid. Phoenice. PhoeNix, I. a fabulous bird, of which Herodotus gives the following account in that part of his work which treats of Egypt. “The phoenix is another sacred bird, which I have never seen except in effigy. He rarely appears in Egypt; once only in five hundred years, immediately after the death of his father, as the Heliopolitans affirm. If the painters describe him truly, his feathers represent a mixture of crimson and gold; and he resembles the eagle in outline and size. They affirm that he contrives the following thing, which to me is not credible. They say that he comes from Arabia, and, bringing the body of his father enclosed in myrrh, buries him in the temple of the sun; and that he brings him in the following manner. First he moulds as great a quantity of myrrh into the shape of an egg as he is well able to carry : and, after having tried the weight, he hollows out the egg, and puts his parent into it, and stops up with some more myrrh the hole through which he had introduced the body, so that the weight is the same as before: he then carries the whole mass to the temple of the sun in Egypt. Such is the account they give of the phoenix.” (Herod., 2, 73.)—The whole of this fable is evidently astronomical, and the following very ingenious explanation has been given by Marcoz. He assumes as the basis of his remarks the fragment of Hesiod preserved by Plutarch in his treatise De Oraculorum Defectu. (IIepi riov čkaežout. Xpmar.—Op., ed. Reiske, vol. 7, p. 635.)
Poèt. Min. Graec., vol. 1, p. 189.)—The whole com. putation here turns upon the meaning of the term generation (yevea). Marcoz takes the moon sor his guide; and as this luminary ceases, like man, to exist, only, like him, again to arise, the period of its revolution becomes the standard required. Twenty-seven days and a third, then, converted into twenty-seven years and a third, give the measure of a generation among men. Reducing this, in order to make the analogy with the moon as complete as possible, he gives twenty-six years and two thirds as the result The computation is then as follows:
This period of 25920 years is precisely the duration of the Great Year (Magnus Annus) of the fixed stars, having for its element exactly 50", the annual precession of the equinoxes. From this computation also we will be enabled to perceive how 50", converted into years, and multiplied by 1-1-2+3+4, that is, by 10, gave the Egyptians 500 years as the duration of the phoenix. These numbers, 1+2+3+4, indicale that the 50 seconds, converted into years, trave:se successively the four quarters of the ecliptic, in order to form the Great Year, the astronomical duration of the life of the phoenix. (Marcoz, Astronomie Solaire d'Hipparque, p. xvi., seq.)—II. Son of Amyntor, king of Argos, and the preceptor of Achilles, to whom he was so attached that he accompanied him to the Trojan war. According to the Homeric account (ll, 9, 447, seqq.), Amyntor having transferred his affections from his lawsul wife, Hippodamia, to a concubine, the former besought her son Phoenix to gain the affections of his father's mistress, and alienate her from Amyntor. Phoenix succeeded in his suit, and his enraged father imprecated upon him the bitterest curses. The son, therefore, notwithstanding the entreaties and efforts of his relations to detain him at his parent's court, fled to Phthia, in Thessaly, where he was kindly received by Peleus, monarch of the coun: try, who assigned him a territory on the confines of Phthia, and the sway over the Dolopians. He intrusted him also with the education of his son Achilles. —Such is the Homeric account. Later writers, however, make Amyntor to have put out his son's eyes, and the latter to have fled in this condition to Peleus, who led him to Chiron, and persuaded the centaur wo restore him to sight. (Lycophron, 422.--Tzelz, ad Lycophr., l.c.) The curse uttered against Phoenix was that he might remain ever childless, and hence Tzezes seeks to explain the story of his blindness, by making it a figurative allusion to his childless condi. tion, a father's offspring being as it were his eyes in the language of antiquity. (Tzetz., l.c.—Muller, all schol. Tzetz., l.c.) – Apollodorus says that Phoenix was blinded by his father, on a false charge preserted against him by the concubine (karapovaauevo oppo offiq, Tic roi Tarpoo razžakiðoc.—Apollod, 3.1% 8). The variations in the legend arose probably from the circumstance, of the tragic poets having frequently made the story of Phoenix the subject of their compositions, and having, of course, introduced more or less variations from the original tale. (Heyne, ad Apollod, l. c.) There was a Phoenix of Sophocles, another of Euripides, and a third of Ion. (Valck, Duttrib, c. 24)—To return to the story of the son of Amyntor: aster the death of Achilles, Phoenix was one of those commissioned to return to Greece and bring . Pyrrhus to the war. On the fall of Troy, he returne with that prince to Thessaly, in which country he co