GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A, Camden Professor of Ancient History in the University of Oxford Canon of Canterbury, Corresponding Member of the Royal Academy of Turin, 1889.

1. Phoenicia, before the establishment of the hegemony of Tyre.

Separate autonomy of the Phoenician cities --No marked predominance of any one or more of them during the Egyptian period, B.C. 1600- 1350 --A certain pre-eminence subsequently acquired by Aradus and Sidon --Sidonian territorial ascendancy --Great proficiency of Sidon in the arts --Sidon's war with the Philistines --Her early colonies --Her advances in navigation --Her general commercial honesty -- Occasional kidnapping --Stories of Io and Eumæus --Internal government --Relations with the Israelites.

When the Phoenician immigrants, in scattered bands, and at longer or shorter intervals, arrived upon the Phoenician coast, and finding it empty occupied it, or wrested it from its earlier possessors, there was a decided absence from among them of any single governing or controlling authority; a marked tendency to assert and maintain separate rule and jurisdiction. Sidon, the Arkite, the Arvadite, the Zemarite, are separately enumerated in the book of Genesis;¹ and the Hebrews have not even any one name under which to comprise the commercial people settled upon their coast line,² until we come to Gospel times, when the Greeks have brought the term "Syro-Phoenician" into use.³ Elsewhere we hear of "them of Sidon," "them of Tyre,"⁴ "the Giblites,"⁵ "the men of Arvad,"⁶ "the Arkites," "the Sinites," "the Zemarites,"⁷ "the inhabitants of Accho, of Achzib, and Aphek,"⁸ but never of the whole maritime population north of Philistia under any single ethnic appellation. And the reason seems to be, that the Phoenicians, even more than the Greeks, affected a city autonomy. Each little band of immigrants, as soon as it had pushed its way into the sheltered tract between the mountains and the sea, settled itself upon some attractive spot, constructed habitations, and having surrounded its habitations with walls, claimed to be --and found none to dispute the claim --a distinct political entity. The conformation of the land, so broken up into isolated regions by strong spurs from Lebanon and Bargylus, lent additional support to the separatist spirit, and the absence in the early times of any pressure of danger from without permitted its free indulgence without entailing any serious penalty. It is difficult to say at what time the first settlements took place; but during the period of Egyptian supremacy over Western Asia, under the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties (ab. B.C. 1600-1350), we seem to find the Phoenicians in possession of the coast tract, and their cities severally in the enjoyment of independence and upon a quasi-equality. Tyre, Sidon, Gebal, Aradus, Simyra, Sarepta, Berytus, and perhaps Arka, appear in the inscriptions of Thothmes III,⁹ and in the "Travels of a Mohar,"¹⁰ without an indication of the pre-eminence, much less the supremacy, of any one of them. The towns pursued their courses independently one of another, submitting to the Egyptians when hard pressed, but always ready to reassert themselves, and never joining, so far as appears, in any league or confederation, by which their separate autonomy might have been endangered. During this period no city springs to any remarkable height of greatness or prosperity; material progress is, no doubt, being made by the nation; but it is not very marked, and it does not excite any particular attention.

But with the decline of the Egyptian power, which sets in after the death of the second Rameses, a change takes place. External pressure being removed, ambitions begin to develop themselves. In the north Aradus (Arvad), in the south Sidon, proceed to exercise a sort of hegemony over several neighbouring states. Sidon becomes known as "Great Zidon."¹¹ Not content with her maritime ascendancy, which was already pushing her into special notice, she aspired to a land dominion, and threw out offshoots from the main seat of her power as far as Laish, on the head-waters of the Jordan.¹² It was her support, probably, which enabled the inhabitants of such comparatively weak cities as Accho and Achzib and Aphek to resist the invasion of the Hebrews, and maintain themselves, despite all attempts made to reduce them.¹³ At the same time she gradually extended her influence over the coast towns in her neighbourhood, as Sarepta, Heldun, perhaps Berytus, Ecdippa, and Accho. The period which succeeds that of Egyptian preponderance in Western Asia may be distinguished as that of Sidonian ascendancy, or of such ascendancy slightly modified by an Aradian hegemony in the north over the settlements intervening between Mount Casius and the northern roots of Lebanon.¹⁴ During this period Sidon came to the front, alike in arts, in arms, and in navigation. Her vessels were found by the earliest Greek navigators in all parts of the Mediterranean into which they themselves ventured, and were known to push themselves into regions where no Greek dared to follow them. Under her fostering care Phoenician colonisation had spread over the whole of the Western Mediterranean, over the Ægean, and into the Propontis. She had engaged in war with the powerful nation of the Philistines, and, though worsted in the encounter, had obtained a reputation for audacity. By her wonderful progress in the arts, her citizens had acquired the epithet of {poludaidaloi},¹⁵ and had come to be recognised generally as the foremost artificers of the world in almost every branch of industry. Sidonian metal-work was particularly in repute. When Achilles at the funeral of Patroclus desired to offer as a prize to the fastest runner the most beautiful bowl that was to be found in all the world, he naturally chose one which had been deftly made by highly-skilled Sidonians, and which Phoenician sailors had conveyed in one of their hollow barks across the cloud-shadowed sea.¹⁶ When Menelaus proposed to present Telemachus, the son of his old comrade Odysseus, with what was at once the most beautiful and the most valuable of all his possessions, he selected a silver bowl with a golden rim, which in former days he had himself received as a present from Phædimus, the Sidonian king.¹⁷ The sailors who stole Eumæus from Ortygia, and carried him across the sea to Ithica, obtained their prize by coming to his father's palace, and bringing with them, among other wares,

. . . a necklace of fine gold to sell, With bright electron linked right wondrously and well.¹⁸

Sidon's pre-eminence in the manufacture, the dyeing, and the embroidery of textile fabrics was at the same time equally unquestionable. Hecuba, being advised to offer to Athêné, on behalf of her favourite son, the best and loveliest of all the royal robes which her well-stored dress-chamber could furnish --

She to her fragrant wardrobe bent her way, Where her rich veils in beauteous order lay; Webs by Sidonian virgins finely wrought, From Sidon's woofs by youthful Paris brought, When o'er the boundless main the adulterer led Fair Helen from her home and nuptial bed; From these she chose the fullest, fairest far, With broidery bright, and blazing as a star.¹⁹

Already, it would seem, the precious shell-fish, on which Phoenicia's commerce so largely rested in later times, had been discovered; and it was the dazzling hue of the robe which constituted its especial value. Sidon was ultimately eclipsed by Tyre in the productions of the loom; and the unrivalled dye has come down to us, and will go down to all future ages, as "/Tyrian/ purple;" but we may well believe that in this, as in most other matters on which prosperity and success depended, Tyre did but follow in the steps of her elder sister Sidon, perfecting possibly the manufacture which had been Sidon's discovery in the early ages. According to Scylax of Cadyanda, Dor was a Sidonian colony.²⁰ Geographically it belonged rather to Philistia than to Phoenicia; but its possession of large stores of the purple fish caused its sudden seizure and rapid fortification at a very remote date, probably by the Phoenicians of Sidon.²¹ It is quite possible that this aggression may have provoked that terrible war to which reference has already been made, between the Philistines under the hegemony of Ascalon and the first of the Phoenician cities. Ascalon attacked the Sidonians by land, blockaded the offending town, and after a time compelled a surrender; but the defenders had a ready retreat by sea, and, when they could no longer hold out against their assailants, took ship, and removed themselves to Tyre, which at the time was probably a dependency.²²

In navigation also and colonisation Sidon took the lead. According to some, she was the actual founder of Aradus, which was said to have owed its origin to a body of Sidonian exiles, who there settled themselves.²³ Not much reliance, however, can be placed on this tradition, which first appears in a writer of the Augustan age. With more confidence we may ascribe to Sidon the foundation of Citium in Cyprus, the colonisation of the islands in the Ægean, and of those Phoenician settlements in North Africa which were anterior to the founding of Carthage. It has even been supposed that the Sidonians were the first to make a settlement at Carthage itself,²⁴ and that the Tyrian occupation under Dido was a recolonisation of an already occupied site. Anyhow, Sidon was the first to explore the central Mediterranean, and establish commercial relations with the barbarous tribes of the mid-African coast, Cabyles, Berbers, Shuloukhs, Tauriks, and others. She is thought to claim on a coin to be the mother-city of Melita, or Malta, as well as of Citium and Berytus;²⁵ and, if this claim be allowed, we can scarcely doubt that she was also the first to plant colonies in Sicily. Further than this, it would seem, Sidonian enterprise did not penetrate. It was left for Tyre to discover the wealth of Southern Spain, to penetrate beyond the Straits of Gibraltar, and to affront the perils of the open ocean.

But, within the sphere indicated, Sidonian rovers traversed all parts of the Great Sea, penetrated into every gulf, became familiar sights to the inhabitants of every shore. From timid sailing along the coast by day, chiefly in the summer season, when winds whispered gently, and atmospheric signs indicated that fair weather had set in, they progressed by degrees to long voyages, continued both by night and day,²⁶ from promontory to promontory, or from island to island, sometimes even across a long stretch of open sea, altogether out of sight of land, and carried on at every season of the year except some few of special danger. To Sidon is especially ascribed the introduction of the practice of sailing by night,²⁷ which shortened the duration of voyages by almost one-half, and doubled the number of trips that a vessel could accomplish in the course of a year. For night sailing the arts of astronomy and computation had to be studied;²⁸ the aspect of the heavens at different seasons had to be known; and among the shifting constellations some fixed point had to be found by which it would be safe to steer. The last star in the tail of the Little Bear --the polar star of our own navigation books --was fixed upon by the Phoenicians, probably by the Sidonians, for this purpose,²⁹ and was practically employed as the best index of the true north from a remote period. The rate of a ship's speed was, somehow or other, estimated; and though it was long before charts were made, or the set of currents taken into account, yet voyages were for the most part accomplished with very tolerable accuracy and safety. An ample commerce grew up under Sidonian auspices. After the vernal equinox was over a fleet of white-winged ships sped forth from the many harbours of the Eastern Mediterranean coast, well laden with a variety of wares --Phoenician, Assyrian, Egyptian³⁰ --and made for the coasts and islands of the Levant, the Ægean, the Propontis, the Adriatic, the mid-Mediterranean, where they exchanged the cargoes which they had brought with them for the best products of the lands whereto they had come. Generally, a few weeks, or at most a month or two, would complete the transfer the of commodities, and the ships which left Sidon in April or May would return about June or July, unload, and make themselves ready for a second voyage. But sometimes, it appears, the return cargo was not so readily procured, and vessels had to remain in the foreign port, or roadstead, for the space of a whole year.³¹

The behaviour of the traders must, on the whole, have been such as won the respect of the nations and tribes wherewith they traded. Otherwise, the markets would soon have been closed against them, and, in lieu of the peaceful commerce which the Phoenicians always affected, would have sprung up along the shores of the Mediterranean a general feeling of distrust and suspicion, which would have led on to hostile encounters, surprises, massacres, and then reprisals. The entire history of Phoenician commerce shows that such a condition of things never existed. The traders and their customers were bound together by the bonds of self-interest, and, except in rare instances, dealt by each other fairly and honestly. Still, there were occasions when, under the stress of temptation, fair-dealing was lost sight of, and immediate prospect of gain was allowed to lead to the commission of acts destructive of all feeling of security, subversive of commercial morals, and calculated to effect a rupture of commercial relations, which it may often have taken a long term of years to re-establish. Herodotus tells us that, at a date considerably anterior to the Trojan war, when the ascendancy over the other Phoenician cities must certainly have belonged to Sidon, an affair of this kind took place on the coast of Argolis, which was long felt by the Greeks as an injury and an outrage. A Phoenician vessel made the coast near Argos, and the crew, having effected a landing, proceeded to expose their merchandise for sale along the shore, and to traffic with the natives, who were very willing to make purchases, and in the course of five or six days bought up almost the entire cargo. At length, just as the traders were thinking of re-embarking and sailing away, there came down to the shore from the capital a number of Argive ladies, including among them a princess, Io, the daughter of Inachus, the Argive king. Hereupon, the trafficking and the bargaining recommenced; goods were produced suited to the taste of the new customers; and each strove to obtain what she desired most at the least cost. But suddenly, as they were all intent upon their purchases, and were crowding round the stern of the ship, the Phoenicians, with a general shout, rushed upon them. Many --the greater part, we are told --made their escape; but the princess, and a certain number of her companions, were seized and carried on board. The traders quickly put to sea, and hoisting their sails, hurried away to Egypt.³²

Another instance of kidnapping, accomplished by art rather than by force, is related to us by Homer.³³ Eumæus, the swineherd of Ulysses, was the son of a king, dwelling towards the west, in an island off the Sicilian coast. A Phoenician woman, herself kidnapped from Sidon by piratical Taphians, had the task of nursing and tending him assigned to her, and discharged it faithfully until a great temptation befell her. A Sidonian merchant-ship visited the island, laden with rich store of precious wares, and proceeded to open a trade with the inhabitants, in the course of which one of the sailors seduced the Phoenician nurse, and suggested that when the vessel left, she should allow herself to be carried off in it. The woman, whose parents were still alive at Sidon, came into the scheme, and being apprised of the date of the ship's departure, stole away from the palace unobserved, taking with her three golden goblets, and also her master's child, the boy of whom she had charge. It was evening, and all having been prepared beforehand, the nurse and child were hastily smuggled on board, the sails were hoisted, and the ship was soon under weigh. The wretched woman died ere the voyage was over, but the boy survived, and was carried by the traders to Ithaca, and there sold for a good sum to Laërtes.

It is not suggested that these narratives, in the form in which they have come down to us, are historically true. There may never have been an "Io, daughter of Inachus," or an "Eumæus, son of Ctesius Ormenides," or an island, "Phoenicia called by name, over against Ortygia," or even a Ulysses or a Laërtes. But the tales could never have grown up, have been invented, or have gained acceptance, unless the practice of kidnapping, on which they are based, had been known to be one in which the Phoenicians of the time indulged, at any rate occasionally. We must allow this blot on the Sidonian escutcheon, and can only plead, in extenuation of their offence, first, the imperfect morality of the age, and secondly, the fact that such deviations from the line of fair-dealing and honesty on the part of the Sidonian traders must have been of rare occurrence, or the flourishing and lucrative trade, which was the basis of all the glory and prosperity of the people, could not possibly have been established. Successful commerce must rest upon the foundation of mutual confidence; and mutual confidence is impossible unless the rules of fair dealing are observed on both sides, if not invariably, yet, at any rate, so generally that the infraction of them is not contemplated on either side as anything but the remotest contingency.

Of the internal government of Sidon during this period no details have come down to us. Undoubtedly, like all the Phoenician cities in the early times,³⁴ she had her own kings; and we may presume, from the almost universal practice in ancient times, and especially in the East,³⁵ that the monarchy was hereditary. The main duties of the king were to lead out the people to battle in time of war, and to administer justice in time of peace.³⁶ The kings were in part supported, in part held in check, by a powerful aristocracy --an aristocracy which, we may conjecture, had wealth, rather than birth, as its basis. It does not appear that any political authority was possessed by the priesthood, nor that the priesthood was a caste, as in India, and (according to some writers) in Egypt. The priestly office was certainly not attached by any general custom to the person of the kings, though kings might be priests, and were so occasionally.³⁷

We do not distinctly hear of Sidon has having been engaged in any war during the period of her ascendancy, excepting that with the Philistines. Still as "the Zidonians" are mentioned among the nations which "oppressed Israel" in the time of the Judges,³⁸ we must conclude that differences arose between them and their southern neighbours in some portion of this period, and that, war having broken out between them, the advantage rested with Sidon. The record of "Judges" is incomplete, and does not enable us even to fix the date of the Sidonian "oppression." We can only say that it was anterior to the judgeship of Jephthah, and was followed, like the other "oppressions," by a "deliverance."

The war with the Philistines brought the period of Sidonian ascendancy to an end, and introduces us to the second period of Phoenician history, or that of the hegemony of Tyre. The supposed date of the change is B.C. 1252.³⁹

2. Phoenicia under the hegemony of Tyre (B.C. 1252-877)

Influx of the Sidonian population raises Tyre to the first place among the cities (about B.C. 1252) --First notable result, the colonisation of Gades (B.C. 1130) --Other colonies of about this period --Extension of Phoenician commerce --Tyre ruled by kings --Abi- Baal --Hiram --Hiram's dealings with Solomon --His improvement of his own capital --His opinion of "the land of Cabul" --His joint trade with the Israelites --His war with Utica --Successors of Hiram --Time of disturbance --Reign of Ithobal --of Badezor --of Matgen --of Pygmalion --Founding of Carthage --First contact of Phoenicia with Assyria --Submission of Phoenicia, B.C. 877.

Tyre was noted as a "strong city" as early as the time of Joshua,⁴⁰ and was probably inferior only to Sidon, or to Sidon and Aradus, during the period of Sidonian ascendancy. It is mentioned in the "Travels of a Mohar" (about B.C. 1350) as "a port, richer in fish than in sands."⁴¹ The tradition was, that it acquired its predominance and pre-eminence from the accession of the Sidonian population, which fled thither by sea, when no longer able to resist the forces of Ascalon.⁴² We do not find it, however, attaining to any great distinction or notoriety, until more than a century later, when it distinguishes itself by the colonisation of Gades (about B.C. 1130), beyond the Pillars of Hercules, on the shores of the Atlantic. We may perhaps deduce from this fact, that the concentration of energy caused by the removal to Tyre of the best elements in the population of Sidon gave a stimulus to enterprise, and caused longer voyages to be undertaken, and greater dangers to be affronted by the daring seamen of the Eastern Mediterranean coast than had ever been ventured on before. The Tyrian seamen were, perhaps, of a tougher fibre than the Sidonian, and the change of hegemony is certainly accompanied by a greater display of energy, a more adventurous spirit, a wider colonisation, and a more wonderful commercial success, than characterise the preceding period of Sidonian leadership and influence.

The settlements planted by Tyre in the first burst of her colonising energy seem to have been, besides Gades, Thasos, Abdera, and Pronectus towards the north, Malaca, Sexti, Carteia, Belon, and a second Abdera in Spain, together with Caralis in Sardinia,⁴³ Tingis and Lixus on the West African coast, and in North Africa Hadrumetum and the lesser Leptis.⁴⁴ Her aim was to throw the meshes of her commerce wider than Sidon had ever done, and so to sweep into her net a more abundant booty. It was Tyre which especially affected "long voyages,"⁴⁵ and induced her colonists of Gades to explore the shores outside the Pillars of Hercules, northwards as far as Cornwall and the Scilly Isles, southwards to the Fortunate Islands, and north-eastwards into the Baltic. It is, no doubt, uncertain at what date these explorations were effected, and some of them may belong to the /later/ hegemony of Tyre, ab. B.C. 600; but the forward movement of the twelfth century seems to have been distinctly Tyrian, and to have been one of the results of the new position in which she was placed by the sudden collapse of her elder sister, Sidon.

According to some,⁴⁶ Tyre, during the early period of her supremacy, was under the government of /shôphetim/, or "judges;" but the general usage of the Phoenician cities makes against this supposition. Philo in his "Origines of Phoenicia" speaks constantly of kings,⁴⁷ but never of judges. We hear of a king, Abd-Baal, at Berytus⁴⁸ about B.C. 1300. Sidonian kings are mentioned in connection with the myth of Europa.⁴⁹ The cities founded by the Phoenicians in Cyprus are always under monarchical rule.⁵⁰ Tyre itself, when its history first presents itself to us in any detail, is governed by a king.⁵¹ All that can be urged on the other side is, that we know of no Tyrian king by name until about B.C. 1050; and that, if there had been earlier kings, it might have been expected that some record of them would have come down to us. But to argue thus is to ignore the extreme scantiness and casual character of the notices which have reached us bearing upon the early Phoenician history. No writer has left us any continuous history of Phoenicia, even in the barest outline.⁵² Native monumental annals are entirely wanting. We depend for the early times upon the accident of Jewish monarchs having come into contact occasionally with Phoenician ones, and on Jewish writers having noted the occasions in Jewish histories. Scripture and Josephus alone furnish our materials for the period now under consideration, and the materials are scanty, fragmentary, and sadly wanting in completeness.

It is towards the middle of the eleventh century B.C. that these materials become available. About the time when David was acclaimed as king by the tribe of Judah at Hebron, a Phoenician prince mounted the throne of Tyre, by name Abibalus, or Abi-Baal.⁵³ We do not know the length of his reign; but, while the son of Jesse was still in the full vigour of life, Abi-Baal was succeeded on the Tyrian throne by his son, Hiram or Hirôm, a prince of great energy, of varied tastes, and of an unusually broad and liberal turn of mind. Hiram, casting his eye over the condition of the states and kingdoms which were his neighbours, seems to have discerned in Judah and David a power and a ruler whose friendship it was desirable to cultivate with a view to the establishment of very close relations. Accordingly, it was not long after the Jewish monarch's capture of the Jebusite stronghold on Mount Zion that the Tyrian prince sent messengers to him to Jerusalem, with a present of "timber of cedars," and a number of carpenters, and stone-hewers, well skilled in the art of building.⁵⁴ David accepted their services, and a goodly palace soon arose on some part of the Eastern hill, of which cedar from Lebanon was the chief material,⁵⁵ and of which Hiram's workmen were the constructors. At a later date David set himself to collect abundant and choice materials for the magnificent Temple which Solomon his son was divinely commissioned to build on Mount Moriah to Jehovah; and here again "the Zidonians and they of Tyre," or the subjects of Hiram, "brought much cedar wood to David."⁵⁶ The friendship continued firm to the close of David's reign;⁵⁷ and when Solomon succeeded his father as king of Israel and lord of the whole tract between the middle Euphrates and Egypt, the bonds were drawn yet closer, and an alliance concluded which placed the two powers on terms of the very greatest intimacy. Hiram had no sooner heard of Solomon's accession than he sent an embassy to congratulate him;⁵⁸ and Solomon took advantage of the opening which presented itself to announce his intention of building the Temple which his father had designed, and to request Hiram's aid in the completion of the work. Copies of letters which passed between the two monarchs were preserved both in the Tyrian and the Jewish archives, and the Tyrian versions are said to have been still extant in the public record office of the city in the first century of the Christian era.⁵⁹ These documents ran as follows: --

"Solomon to King Hiram sends greeting: --Know that my father David was desirous of building a temple to God, but was prevented by his wars and his continual expeditions; for he did not rest from subduing his adversaries, until he had made every one of them tributary to him. And now I for my part return thanks to God for the present time of peace, and having rest thereby I purpose to build the house; for God declared to my father that it should be built by me. Wherefore I beseech thee to send some of thy servants with my servants to Mount Lebanon, to cut wood there, for none among us can skill to hew timber like unto the Sidonians. And I will pay the wood-cutters their hire at whatsoever rate thou shalt determine."

"King Hiram to King Solomon ^{sends greeting}: --Needs must I praise God, that hath given thee to sit upon thy father's throne, seeing that thou art a wise man, and possessed of every virtue. And I, rejoicing at these things, will do all that thou hast desired of me. I will by my servants cut thee in abundance timber of cedar and timber of cypress, and will bring them down to the sea, and command my servants to construct of them a float, or raft, and navigate it to whatever point of thy coast thou mayest wish, and there discharge them; after which thy servants can carry them to Jerusalem. But be it thy care to provide me in return with a supply of food, whereof we are in want as inhabiting an island."⁶⁰

The result was an arrangement by which the Tyrian monarch furnished his brother king with timber of various kinds, chiefly cedar, cut in Lebanon, and also with a certain number of trained artificers, workers in metal, carpenters, and masons, while the Israelite monarch on his part made a return in corn, wine, and oil, supplying Tyre, while the contract lasted, with 20,000 cors of wheat, the same quantity of barley, 20,000 baths of wine, and the same number of oil, annually.⁶¹ Phoenicia always needed to import supplies of food for its abundant population,⁶² and having an inexhaustible store of timber in Lebanon, was glad to find a market for it so near. Thus the arrangement suited both parties. The hillsides of Galilee and the broad and fertile plains of Esdraelon and Sharon produced a superabundance of wheat and barley, whereof the inhabitants had to dispose in some quarter or other, and the highlands of Sumeria and Judæa bore oil and wine far beyond the wants of those who cultivated them. What Phoenicia lacked in these respects from the scantiness of its cultivable soil, Palestine was able and eager to supply; while to Phoenicia it was a boon to obtain, not only a market for her timber, but also employment for her surplus population, which under ordinary circumstances was always requiring to be carried off to distant lands, from the difficulty of supporting itself at home.

A still greater advantage was it to the rude Judæans to get the assistance of their civilised and artistic neighbours in the design and execution, both of the Temple itself and of all those accessories, which in ancient times a sacred edifice on a large scale was regarded as requiring. The Phoenicians, and especially the Tyrians, had long possessed, both in their home and foreign settlements, temples of some pretension, and Hiram had recently been engaged in beautifying and adorning, perhaps in rebuilding, some of these venerable edifices at Tyre.⁶³ A Phoenician architectural style had thus been formed, and Hiram's architects and artificers would be familiar with constructive principles and ornamental details, as well as with industrial processes, which are very unlikely to have been known at the time to the Hebrews. The wood for the Jewish Temple was roughly cut, and the stones quarried, by Israelite workmen;⁶⁴ but all the delicate work, whether in the one material or the other, was performed by the servants of Hiram. Stone-cutters from Gebal (Byblus) shaped and smoothed the "great stones, costly stones" employed in the substructions of the "house;"⁶⁵ Tyrian carpenters planed and polished the cedar planks used for the walls, and covered them with representations of cherubs and palms and gourds and opening flowers.⁶⁶ The metallurgists of Sidon probably supplied the cherubic figures in the inner sanctuary,⁶⁷ as well as the castings for the doors,⁶⁸ and the bulk of the sacred vessels. The vail which separated between the "Holy Place" and the Holy of Holies --a marvellous fabric of blue, and purple, and crimson, and white, with cherubim wrought thereon⁶⁹ --owed its beauty probably to Tyrian dyers and Tyrian workers in embroidery. The master-workman lent by the Tyrian monarch to superintend the entire work --an extraordinary and almost universal genius --"skilful to work in gold and in silver, in brass, in iron, in stone, and in timber; in purple, in blue, in fine linen, and in crimson; also to grave any manner of graving"⁷⁰ --who bore the same name with the king,⁷¹ was the son of an Israelite mother, but boasted a Tyrian father,⁷² and was doubtless born and bred up at Tyre. Under his special direction were cast in the valley of the Jordan, between Succoth and Zarthan,⁷³ those wonderful pillars, known as Jachin and Boaz, which have already been described, and which seem to have had their counterparts in the sacred edifices both of Phoenicia and Cyprus.⁷⁴ To him also is specially ascribed the "molten sea," standing on twelve oxen,⁷⁵ which was perhaps the most artistic of all the objects placed within the Temple circuit, as are also the lavers upon wheels,⁷⁶ which, if less striking as works of art, were even more curious.

The partnership established between the two kingdoms in connection with the building and furnishing of the Jewish Temple, which lasted for seven years,⁷⁷ was further continued for thirteen more⁷⁸ in connection with the construction of Solomon's palace. This palace, like an Assyrian one, consisted of several distinct edifices. "The chief was a long hall which, like the Temple, was encased in cedar; whence probably its name, 'The House of the Forest of Lebanon.' In front of it ran a pillared portico. Between this portico and the palace itself was a cedar porch, sometimes called the Tower of David. In this tower, apparently hung over the walls outside, were a thousand golden shields, which gave to the whole place the name of the Armoury. With a splendour that outshone any like fortress, the tower with these golden targets glittered far off in the sunshine like the tall neck, as it was thought, of a beautiful bride, decked out, after the manner of the East, with strings of golden coins. This porch was the gem and centre of the whole empire; and was so much thought of that a smaller likeness to it was erected in another part of the precinct for the queen. Within the porch itself was to be seen the king in state. On a throne of ivory, brought from Africa or India, the throne of many an Arabian legend, the kings of Judah were solemnly seated on the day of their accession. From its lofty seat, and under that high gateway, Solomon and his successors after him delivered their solemn judgments. That 'porch' or 'gate of justice' still kept alive the likeness of the old patriarchal custom of sitting in judgment at the gate; exactly as the 'Gate of Justice' still recalls it to us at Granada, and the Sublime Porte --'the Lofty Gate' --at Constantinople. He sate on the back of a golden bull, its head turned over its shoulder, probably the ox or bull of Ephraim; under his feet, on each side of the steps, were six golden lions, probably the lions of Judah. This was 'the seat of Judgment.' This was 'the throne of the House of David.'"⁷⁹

We have dwelt the longer upon these matters because it is from the lengthy and elaborate descriptions which the Hebrew writers give of these Phoenician constructions at Jerusalem that we must form our conceptions, not only of the state of Phoenician art in Hiram's time, but also of the works wherewith he adorned his own capital. He came to the throne at the age of nineteen,⁸⁰ on the decease of his father, and immediately set to work to improve, enlarge, and beautify the city, which in his time claimed the headship of, at any rate, all Southern Phoenicia. He found Tyre a city built on two islands, separated the one from the other by a narrow channel, and so cramped for room that the inhabitants had no open square, or public place, on which they could meet, and were closely packed in overcrowded dwellings.⁸¹ The primary necessity was to increase the area of the place; and this Hiram effected, first, by filling up the channel between the two islands with stone and rubbish, and so gaining a space for new buildings, and then by constructing huge moles or embankments towards the east, and towards the south, where the sea was shallowest, and thus turning what had been water into land. In this way he so enlarged the town that he was able to lay out a "wide space" (Eurychôrus)⁸² as a public square, which, like the Piazza di San Marco at Venice, became the great resort of the inhabitants for business and pleasure. Having thus provided for utility and convenience, he next proceeded to embellishment and ornamentation. The old temples did not seem to him worthy of the renovated capital; he therefore pulled them down and built new ones in their place. In the most central part of the city⁸³ he erected a fane for the worship of Melkarth and Ashtoreth, probably retaining the old site, but constructing an entirely new building --the building which Herodotus visited,⁸⁴ and in which Alexander insisted on sacrificing.⁸⁵ Towards the south-west,⁸⁶ on what had been a separate islet, he raised a temple to Baal, and adorned it with a lofty pillar of gold,⁸⁷ or at any rate plated with gold. Whether he built himself a new palace is not related; but as the royal residence of later times was situated on the southern shore,⁸⁸ which was one of Hiram's additions to his capital, it is perhaps most probable that the construction of this new palace was due to him. The chief material which he used in his buildings was, as in Jerusalem, cedar. The substructions alone were of stone. They were probably not on so grand a scale as those of the Jewish Temple, since the wealth of Hiram, sovereign of a petty kingdom, must have fallen very far short of Solomon's, ruler of an extensive empire.

At the close of the twenty years during which Hiram had assisted Solomon in his buildings, the Israelite monarch deemed it right to make his Tyrian brother some additional compensation beyond the corn, and wine, and oil with which, according to his contract, he had annually supplied him. Accordingly, he voluntarily ceded to him a district of Galilee containing twenty cities, a portion of the old inheritance of Asher,⁸⁹ conveniently near to Accho, of which Hiram was probably lord, and not very remote from Tyre. The tract appears to have been that where the modern Kabûl now stands, which is a rocky and bare highland,⁹⁰ --part of the outlying roots of Lebanon --overlooking the rich plain of Akka or Accho, and presenting a striking contrast to its fertility. Hiram, on the completion of the cession, "came out from Tyre to see the cities which Solomon had given him," and was disappointed with the gift. "What cities are these," he said, "which thou hast given me, my brother? And he called them the land of Cabul" --"rubbish" or "offscourings" --to mark his disappointment.⁹¹

But this passing grievance was not allowed in any way to overshadow, or interfere with, the friendly alliance and "entente cordiale" (to use a modern phrase) which existed between the two nations. Solomon, according to one authority,⁹² paid a visit to Tyre, and gratified his host by worshipping in a Sidonian temple. According to another,⁹³ Hiram gave him in marriage, as a secondary wife, one of his own daughters --a marriage perhaps alluded to by the writer of Kings when he tells us that "King Solomon loved many strange women together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, /Zidonians/, and Hittites."⁹⁴ The closest commercial relations were established between the two countries, and the hope of them was probably one of the strongest reasons which attracted both parties to the alliance. The Tyrians, on their part, possessed abundant ships; their sailors had full "knowledge of the sea,"⁹⁵ and the trade of the Mediterranean was almost wholly in their hands. Solomon, on his side, being master of the port of Ezion- Geber on the Red Sea, had access to the lucrative traffic with Eastern Africa, Arabia, and perhaps India, which had hitherto been confined to the Egyptians and the Arabs. He had also, by his land power, a command of the trade routes along the Cœle-Eastern Mediterranean valley, by Aleppo, and by Tadmor, which enabled him effectually either to help or to hinder the Phoenician land traffic. Thus either side had something to gain from the other, and a close commercial union might be safely counted on to work for the mutual advantage of both. Such a union, therefore, took place. Hiram admitted Solomon to a participation in his western traffic; and the two kings maintained a conjoint "navy of Tarshish,"⁹⁶ which, trading with Spain and the West coast of Africa, brought to Phoenicia and Palestine "once in three years" many precious and rare commodities, the chief of them being "gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks." Spain would yield the gold and the silver, for the Tagus brought down gold,⁹⁷ and the Spanish silver- mines were the richest in the world.⁹⁸ Africa would furnish in abundance the ivory and the apes; for elephants were numerous in Mauritania,⁹⁹ and on the west coast,¹⁰⁰ in ancient times; and the gorilla¹⁰¹ and the Barbary ape are well-known African products. Africa may also have produced the "peacocks," if /tukkiyim/ are really "peacocks," though they are not found there at the present day. Or the /tukkiyim/ may have been Guinea-fowl --a bird of the same class with the peacock.

In return, Solomon opened to Hiram the route to the East by way of the Red Sea. Solomon, doubtless by the assistance of shipwrights furnished to him from Tyre, "made a navy of ships at Ezion-Geber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom,"¹⁰² and the sailors of the two nations conjointly manned the ships, and performed the voyage to Ophir, whence they brought gold, and "great plenty of almug-trees," and precious stones.¹⁰³ The position of Ophir has been much disputed, but the balance of argument is in favour of the theory which places it in Arabia, on the south-eastern coast, a little outside the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb.¹⁰⁴ It is possible that the fleet did not confine itself to trade with Ophir, but, once launched on the Indian Ocean, proceeded along the Atlantic coast to the Persian Gulf and the peninsula of Hindustan. Or Ophir may have been an emporium for the Indian trade, and the merchants of Phoenicia may have found there the Indian commodities, and the Indian woods,¹⁰⁵ which they seem to have brought back with them to their own country. A most lucrative traffic was certainly established by the united efforts of the two kings; and if the lion's share of the profit fell to Solomon and the Hebrews,¹⁰⁶ still the Phoenicians and Hiram must have participated to some considerable extent in the gains made, or the arrangement would not have continued.

It is thought that Hiram was engaged in one war of some importance. Menander tells us, according to the present text of Josephus,¹⁰⁷ that the "Tityi" revolted from him, and refused any longer to pay him tribute, whereupon he made an expedition against them, and succeeded in compelling them to submit to his authority. As the "Tityi" are an unknown people, conjecture has been busy in suggesting other names,¹⁰⁸ and critics are now of the opinion that the original word used by Menander was not "Tityi," but "Itykæi." The "Itykæi" are the people of Utica: and, if this emendation be accepted,¹⁰⁹ we must regard Hiram as having had to crush a most important and dangerous rebellion. Utica, previously to the foundation of Carthage, was by far the most important of all the mid-African colonies, and her successful revolt would probably have meant to Tyre the loss of the greater portion, if not the whole, of those valuable settlements. A rival to her power would have sprung up in the West, which would have crippled her commerce in that quarter, and checked her colonising energy. She would have suffered thus early more than she did four hundred years later by the great development of the power of Carthage; would have lost a large portion of her prestige; and have entered on the period of her decline when she had but lately obtained a commanding position. Hiram's energy diverted these evils: he did not choose that his kingdom should be dismembered, if he could anyhow help it; and, offering a firm and strenuous opposition to the revolt, he succeeded in crushing it, and maintaining the unity of the empire.

The brilliant reign of Hiram, which covered the space of forty-three years, was not followed, like that of Solomon, by any immediate troubles, either foreign or domestic. He had given his people, either at home or abroad, constant employment; he had consulted their convenience in the enlargement of his capital; he had enriched them, and gratified their love of adventure, by his commercial enterprises; he had maintained their prestige by rivetting their yoke upon a subject state; he had probably pleased them by the temples and other public buildings with which he had adorned and beautified their city. Accordingly, he went down to the grave in peace; and not only so, but left his dynasty firmly established in power. His son, Baal-azar or Baleazar, who was thirty-six years of age, succeeded him, and held the throne for seven years, when he died a natural death.¹¹⁰ Abd- Ashtoreth (Abdastartus), the fourth monarch of the house, then ascended the throne, at the age of twenty, and reigned for nine years before any troubles broke out. Then, however, a time of disturbance supervened. Four of his foster-brothers conspired against Abd- Ashtoreth, and murdered him. The eldest of them seized the throne, and maintained himself upon it for twelve years, when Astartus, perhaps a son of Baal-azar, became king, and restored the line of Hiram. He, too, like his predecessor, reigned twelve years, when his brother, Aserymus, succeeded him. Aserymus, after ruling for nine years, was murdered by another brother, Pheles, who, in his turn, succumbed to a conspiracy headed by the High Priest, Eth-baal, or Ithobal.¹¹¹ Thus, while the period immediately following the death of Hiram was one of tranquillity, that which supervened on the death of Abd-Astartus, Hiram's grandson, was disturbed and unsettled. Three monarchs met with violent deaths within the space of thirty-four years, and the reigning house was, at least, thrice changed during the same interval.

At length with Ithobal a more tranquil time was reached. Ithobal, or Eth-baal, was not only king, but also High Priest of Ashtoreth, and thus united the highest sacerdotal with the highest civil authority. He was a man of decision and energy, a worthy successor of Hiram, gifted like him with wide-reaching views, and ambitious of distinction. One of his first acts was to ally himself with Ahab, King of Israel, by giving him his daughter, Jezebel, in marriage,¹¹² thus strengthening his land dominion, and renewing the old relations of friendship with the Hebrew people. Another act of vigour assigned to him is the foundation of Botrys, on the Eastern Mediterranean coast, north of Gebal, perhaps a defensive movement against Assyria.¹¹³ Still more enterprising was his renewal of the African colonisation by his foundation of Aüza in Numidia,¹¹⁴ which became a city of some importance. Ithobal's reign lasted, we are told, thirty-two years. He was sixty-eight years of age at his death, and was succeeded by his son, who is called Badezor, probably a corruption of Balezor, or Baal- azar¹¹⁵ --the name given by Hiram to his son and successor. Of Badezor we know nothing, except that he reigned six years, and was succeeded by his son Matgen, perhaps Mattan,¹¹⁶ a youth of twenty- three.

With Matgen, or Mattan, whichever be the true form of the name, the internal history of Tyre becomes interesting. It appears that two parties already existed in the state, one aristocratic, and the other popular.¹¹⁷ Mattan, fearing the ascendancy of the popular party, married his daughter, Elisa, whom he intended for his successor, to her uncle and his own brother, Sicharbas, who was High Priest of Melkarth, and therefore possessed of considerable authority in his own person. Having effected this marriage, and nominated Elisa to succeed him, Mattan died at the early age of thirty-two, after a reign of only nine years.¹¹⁸ Besides his daughter, he had left behind him a son, Pygmalion, who, at his decease, was but eight or nine years old. This child the democratic party contrived to get under their influence, proclaimed him king, young as he was, and placed him upon the throne. Elisa and her husband retired into private life, and lived in peace for seven years, but Pygmalion, being then grown to manhood, was not content to leave them any longer unmolested. He murdered Sicharbas, and endeavoured to seize his riches. But the ex-Queen contrived to frustrate his design, and having possessed herself of a fleet of ships, and taken on board the greater number of the nobles, sailed away, with her husband's wealth untouched, to Cyprus first, and then to Africa.¹¹⁹ Here, by agreement with the inhabitants, a site was obtained, and the famous settlement founded, which became known to the Greeks as "Karchêdon," and to the Romans as "Carthago," or Carthage. Josephus places this event in the hundred and forty-fourth year after the building of the Temple of Solomon,¹²⁰ or about B.C. 860. This date, however, is far from certain.

It appears to have been in the reign of Ithobal that the first contact took place between Phoenicia and Assyria. About B.C. 885, a powerful and warlike monarch, by name Asshur-nazir-pal, mounted the throne of Nineveh, and shortly engaged in a series of wars towards the south, the east, the north, and the north-west.¹²¹ In the last-named direction he crossed the Euphrates at Carchemish (Jerablus), and, having overrun the country between that river and the Orontes, he proceeded to pass this latter stream also, and to carry his arms into the rich tract which lay between the Orontes and the Mediterranean. "It was a tract," says M. Maspero,¹²² "opulent and thickly populated, at once full of industries and commercial; the metals, both precious and ordinary, gold, silver, copper, tin (?), iron, were abundant; traffic with Phoenicia supplied it with the purple dye, and with linen stuffs, with ebony and with sandal-wood. Asshur-nazir-pal's attack seems to have surprised the chief of the Hittites in a time of profound peace. Sangar, King of Carchemish, allowed the passage of the Euphrates to take place without disputing it, and opened to the Assyrian the gates of his capital. Lubarna, king of Kunulua, alarmed at the power of the enemy, and dreading the issue of a battle, came to terms with him, consenting to make over to him twenty talents of gold, a talent of silver, two hundred talents of tin, a hundred of iron, 2,000 oxen, 10,000 sheep, a thousand garments of wool or linen, together with furniture, arms, and slaves beyond all count. The country of Lukhuti resisted, and suffered the natural consequences -- all the cities were sacked, and the prisoners crucified. After this exploit, Asshur-nazir-pal occupied both the slopes of Mount Lebanon, and then descended to the shores of the Mediterranean. Phoenicia did not await his arrival to do him homage: the kings of Tyre, Sidon, Gebal, and Arvad, 'which is in the midst of the sea,' sent him presents. The Assyrian employed their time in cutting down cedar trees in Lebanon and Amanus, together with pines and cypresses, which they transported to Nineveh to be used in the construction of a temple to Ishtar."

The period of the Assyrian subjection, which commenced with this attack on the part of Asshur-nazir-pal, will be the subject of the next section. It only remains here briefly to recapitulate the salient points of Phoenician history under Tyre's first supremacy. In the first place, it was a time of increased daring and enterprise, in which colonies were planted upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, and trade extended to the remote south, the more remote north, and the still more remote north-east, to the Fortunate Islands, the Cassiterides, and probably the Baltic. Secondly, it was a time when the colonies on the North African coast were reinforced, strengthened, and increased in number; when the Phoenician yoke was rivetted on that vast projection into the Mediterranean which divides that sea into two halves, and goes far to give the power possessing it entire command of the Mediterranean waters. Thirdly, it was a time of extended commerce with the East, perhaps the only time when Phoenician merchant vessels were free to share in the trade of the Red Sea, to adventure themselves in the Indian Ocean, and to explore the distant coasts of Eastern Africa, Southern Arabia, Beloochistan, India and Ceylon. Fourthly, it was a time of artistic vigour and development, when Tyre herself assumed that aspect of splendour and magnificence which thenceforth characterised her until her destruction by Alexander, and when she so abounded in æsthetic energy and genius that she could afford to take the direction of an art movement in a neighbouring country, and to plant her ideas on that conspicuous hill which for more than a thousand years drew the eyes of men almost more than any other city of the East, and was only destroyed because she was felt by Rome to be a rival that she could not venture to spare. Finally, it was a time when internal dissensions, long existing, came to a head, and the state lost, through a sudden desertion, a considerable portion of its strength, which was transferred to a distant continent, and there steadily, if not rapidly, developed itself into a power, not antagonistic indeed, but still, by the necessity of its position, a rival power --a new commercial star, before which all other stars, whatever their brightness had been, paled and waned --a new factor in the polity of nations, whereof account had of necessity to be taken; a new trade-centre, which could not but supersede to a great extent all former trade-centres, and which, however unwillingly, as it rose, and advanced, and prospered, tended to dim, obscure, and eclipse the glories of its mother-city.

3. Phoenicia during the period of its subjection to Assyria (B.C. 877-635)

Phoenicia conquered by the Assyrian (about B.C. 877) --Peaceful relations established (about B.C. 839) --Time of quiet and prosperity --Harsh measures of Tiglath-pileser II. (about B.C. 740) --Revolt of Simyra --Revolt of Tyre under Elulæus --Wars of Elulæus with Shalmaneser IV. and with Sennacherib --Reign of Abdi-Milkut -- His war with Esarhaddon --Accession of Baal --His relations with Esarhaddon and Asshur-bani-pal --Revolt and reduction of Arvad, Hosah, and Accho --Summary.

The first contact of Phoenicia with Assyria took place, as above observed, in the reign of Asshur-nazir-pal, about the year B.C. 877. The principal cities, on the approach of the great conquering monarch, with his multitudinous array of chariots, his clouds of horse, and his innumerable host of foot soldiers, made haste to submit themselves, sought to propitiate the invader by rich gifts, and accepted what they hoped might prove a nominal subjection. Arvad, which, as the most northern, was the most directly threatened, Gebal, Sidon, and even the comparatively remote Tyre, sent their several embassies, made their offerings, and became, in name at any rate, Assyrian dependencies. But the real subjection of this country was not effected at this time, nor without a struggle. Asshur-nazir-pal's yoke lay lightly upon his vassals, and during the remainder of his long reign --from B.C. 877 to B.C. 860 --he seems to have desisted from military expeditions,¹²³ and to have exerted no pressure on the countries situated west of the Euphrates. It was not until the reign of his son and successor, Shalmaneser II., that the real conquest of Phoenicia and Phoenicia was taken in hand, and pressed to a successful issue by a long series of hard-fought campaigns and bloody battles. From his sixth to his twenty-first year Shamaneser carried on an almost continuous war in Phoenicia,¹²⁴ where his adversaries were the monarchs of Damascus and Hamath, and "the twelve kings beside the sea, above and below,"¹²⁵ one of whom is expressly declared to have been "Mattan-Baal of Arvad."¹²⁶ It was not until the year B.C. 839 that this struggle was terminated by the submission of the monarchs engaged in it to their great adversary, and the firm establishment of a system of "tribute and taxes."¹²⁷ The Phoenician towns agreed to pay annually to the Assyrian monarch a certain fixed sum in the precious metals, and further to make him presents from time to time of the best products of their country. Among these are mentioned "skins of buffaloes, horns of buffaloes, clothing of wool and linen, violet wool, purple wool, strong wood, wood for weapons, skins of sheep, fleeces of shining purple, and birds of heaven."¹²⁸

The relations of Phoenicia towards the Assyrian monarchy continued to be absolutely peaceful for above a century. The cities retained their native monarchs, their laws and institutions, their religion, and their entire internal administration. So long as they paid the fixed tribute, they appear not to have been interfered with in any way. It would seem that their trade prospered. Assyria had under her control the greater portion of those commercial routes across the continent of Asia,¹²⁹ which it was of the highest importance to Phoenicia to have open and free from peril. Her caravans could traverse them with increased security, now that they were safeguarded by a power whereof she was a dependency. She may even have obtained through Assyria access to regions which had been previously closed to her, as Media, and perhaps Persia. At any rate Tyre seems to have been as flourishing in the later times of the Assyrian dominion as at almost any other period. Isaiah, in denouncing woe upon her, towards the close of the dominion, shows us what she had been under it: --

Be silent (he says), ye inhabitants of the island, Which the merchants of Zidon, that pass over the sea, have replenished. The corn of the Nile, on the broad waters, The harvest of the River, has been her revenue: She has been the mart of nations . . . She was a joyful city, Her antiquity was of ancient days . . . She was a city that dispensed crowns; Her merchants were princes, And her traffickers the honourable of the earth.¹³⁰

A change in the friendly feelings of the Phoenician cities towards Assyria first began after the rise of the Second or Lower Assyrian Empire, which was founded, about B.C. 745, by Tiglath-pileser II.¹³¹ Tiglath-pileser, after a time of quiescence and decay, raised up Assyria to be once more a great conquering power, and energetically applied himself to the consolidation and unification of the empire. It was the Assyrian system, as it was the Roman, to absorb nations by slow degrees --to begin by offering protection and asking in return a moderate tribute; then to draw the bonds more close, to make fresh demands and enforce them; finally, to pick a quarrel, effect a conquest, and absorb the country, leaving it no vestige of independence. Tiglath-pileser began this process of absorption in Northern Phoenicia about the year B.C. 740. He rearranged the population in the various towns, taking from some and giving to others,¹³² adding also in most cases an Assyrian element, appointing Assyrian governors,¹³³ and requiring of the inhabitants "the performance of service like the Assyrian."¹³⁴ Among the places thus treated between the years B.C. 740 and B.C. 738, we find the Phoenician cities of Zimirra, or Simyra, and Arqa, or Arka. Zimirra was in the plain between the sea and Mount Bargylus, not very far from the island of Aradus, whereof it was a dependency. Arqa was further to the south, beyond the Eleutherus, and belonged properly to Tripolis, if Tripolis had as yet been founded, or else to Botrys. Both of them were readily accessible from the Orontes valley along the course of the Eleutherus, and, being weak, could offer no resistance. Tiglath-pileser carried out his plans, rearranged the populations, and placed the cities under Assyrian governors responsible to himself. There was no immediate outbreak; but the injury rankled. Within twenty years Zimirra joined a revolt, to which Hamath, Arpad, Damascus, and Samaria were likewise parties, and made a desperate attempt to shake off the Assyrian yoke.¹³⁵ The attempt failed, the revolt was crushed, and Zimirra is heard of no more in history.

But this was not the worst. The harsh treatment of Simyra and Arka, without complaint made or offence given, after a full century of patient and quiet submission, aroused a feeling of alarm and indignation among the Phoenician cities generally, which could not fail to see in what had befallen their sisters a foreshadowing of the fate that they had to expect one day themselves. Beginning with the weakest cities, Assyria would naturally go on to absorb those which were stronger, and Tyre herself, the "anointed cherub,"¹³⁶ could look for no greater favour than, like Ulysses in the cave of Polyphemus, to be devoured last. Luliya, or Elulæus, the king of Tyre at the time,¹³⁷ endeavoured to escape this calamity by gathering to himself a strength which would enable him to defy attack. He contrived to establish his dominion over almost the whole of Southern Phoenicia --over Sidon, Accho, Ecdippa, Sarepta, Hosah, Bitsette, Mahalliba, &c.¹³⁸ --and at the same time over the distant Cyprus,¹³⁹ where the Cittæans, or people of Citium, held command of the island. After a time the Cittæans revolted from him, probably stirred up by the Assyrian. But Elulæus, without delay, led an expedition into Cyprus, and speedily put down the rebellion. Hereupon the Assyrian king of the time, Shalmaneser IV., the successor and probably the son of Tiglath-pileser II., led a great expedition into the west about B.C. 727, and "overran all Phoenicia and Phoenicia."¹⁴⁰ But he was unable to make any considerable impression. Tyre and Aradus were safe upon their islands; Sidon and the other cities upon the mainland, were protected by strong and lofty walls. After a single campaign, the Great King found it necessary to offer terms of peace, which proved acceptable, and the belligerents parted towards the close of the year, without any serious loss or gain on either side.¹⁴¹

It seemed necessary to adopt some different course of action. Shalmaneser had discovered during his abortive campaign that there were discords and jealousies among the various Phoenician cities; that none of them submitted without repugnance to the authority of Tyre, and that Sidon especially had an ancient ground of quarrel with her more powerful sister, and always cherished the hope of recovering her original supremacy. He had seen also that the greater number of the Phoenician towns, if he chose to press upon them with the full force of his immense military organisation, lay at his mercy. He had only to invest each city on the land side, to occupy its territory, to burn its villas, to destroy its irrigation works, to cut down its fruit trees, to interfere with its water-supply, and in the last instance to press upon it, to batter down its walls, to enter its streets, slaughter its population, or drive it to take refuge in its ships,¹⁴² and he could become absolute master of the whole Phoenician mainland. Only Tyre and Aradus could escape him. But might not they also be brought into subjection by the naval forces which their sister cities, once occupied, might be compelled to furnish, and to man, or, at any rate, to assist in manning? Might not the whole of Phoenicia be in this way absorbed into the empire? The prospect was pleasing, and Shalmaneser set to work to convert the vision into a reality. By his emissaries he stirred up the spirit of disaffection among the Tyrian subject towns, and succeeded in separating from Tyre, and drawing over to his own side, not only Sidon and Acre and their dependencies, but even the city of Palæ-Tyrus itself,¹⁴³ or the great town which had grown up opposite the island Tyre upon the mainland. The island Tyre seems to have been left without support or ally, to fight her own battle singly. Shalmaneser called upon his new friends to furnish him with a fleet, and they readily responded to the call, placing their ships at his disposal to the number of sixty, and supplying him further with eight hundred skilled oarsmen, not a sufficient number to dispense with Assyrian aid, but enough to furnish a nucleus of able seamen for each vessel. The attack was then made. The Assyro-Phoenician fleet sailed in a body from some port on the continent, and made a demonstration against the Island City, which they may perhaps have expected to frighten into a surrender. But the Tyrians were in no way alarmed. They knew, probably, that their own countrymen would not fight with very much zeal for their foreign masters, and they despised, undoubtedly, the mixed crews, half skilled seamen, half tiros and bunglers, which had been brought against them. Accordingly they thought it sufficient to put to sea with just a dozen ships --one to each five of the enemy, and making a sudden attack with these upon the adverse fleet, they defeated it, dispersed it, and took five hundred prisoners. Shalmaneser saw that he had again miscalculated; and, despairing of any immediate success, drew off his ships and his troops, and retired to his own country. He left behind him, however, on the mainland opposite the island Tyre, a certain number of his soldiers, with orders to prevent the Tyrians from obtaining, according to their ordinary practice, supplies of water from the continent. Some were stationed at the mouth of the river Leontes (the Litany), a little to the north of Tyre, a perennial stream bringing down a large quantity of water from Cœle-Phoenicia and Lebanon; others held possession of the aqueducts on the south, built to convey the precious fluid across the plain from the copious springs of Ras el Ain¹⁴⁴ to the nearest point of the coast opposite the city. The continental water supply was thus effectually cut off; but the Tyrians were resolute, and made no overtures to the enemy. For five years, we are told,¹⁴⁵ they were content to drink such water only as could be obtained in their own island from wells sunk in the soil, which must have been brackish, unwholesome, and disagreeable. At the end of that time a revolution occurred at Nineveh. Shalmaneser lost his throne (B.C. 722), and a new dynasty succeeding, amid troubles of various kinds, attention was drawn away from Tyre to other quarters; and Elulæus was left in undisturbed possession of his island city for nearly a quarter of a century.

It appears that, during this interval, Elulæus rebuilt the power which Shalmaneser had shattered and brought low, repossessing himself of Cyprus, or, at any rate, of some portion of it,¹⁴⁶ and re-establishing his authority over all those cities of the mainland which had previously acknowledged subjection to him. These included Sidon, Bit-sette, Sarepta, Mahalliba, Hosah, Achzib or Ecdippa, and Accho (Acre). There is some ground for thinking that he transferred his own residence to Sidon,¹⁴⁷ perhaps for the purpose of keeping closer watch upon the town which he most suspected of disaffection. The policy of Sargon seems to have been to leave Phoenicia alone, and content himself with drawing the tribute which the cities were quite willing to pay in return for Assyrian protection. His reign lasted from B.C. 722 to B.C. 705, and it was not until Sennacherib, his son and successor, had been seated for four years upon the throne that a reversal of this policy took place, and war /à outrance/ was declared against the Phoenician king, who had ventured to brave, and had succeeded in baffling, Assyria more than twenty years previously. Sennacherib entertained grand designs of conquest in this quarter, and could not allow the example of an unpunished and triumphant rebellion to be flaunted in the eyes of a dozen other subject states, tempting them to throw off their allegiance. He therefore, as soon as affairs in Babylonia ceased to occupy him, marched the full force of the empire towards the west, and proclaimed his intention of crushing the Phoenician revolt, and punishing the audacious rebel who had so long defied the might of Assyria. The army which he set in motion must have numbered more than 200,000 men;¹⁴⁸ its chariots were numerous,¹⁴⁹ its siege-train ample and well provided.¹⁵⁰ Such terror did it inspire among those against whom it was directed that Elulæus was afraid even to await attack, and, while Sennacherib was still on his march, took ship and removed himself to the distant island of Cyprus,¹⁵¹ where alone he could feel safe from pursuit and capture. But, though deserted by their sovereign, his towns seem to have declined to submit themselves. No great battle was fought; but severally they took arms and defended their walls. Sennacherib tells us that he took one after another --"by the might of the soldiers of Asshur his lord"¹⁵² --Great Sidon, Lesser Sidon, Bit-sette, Zarephath or Sarepta, Mahalliba, Hosah, Achzib or Ecdippa, and Accho --"strong cities, fortresses, walled and enclosed, Luliya's castles."¹⁵³ He does not claim, however, to have taken Tyre, and we may conclude that the Island City escaped him. But he made himself master of the entire tract upon the continent which had constituted Luliya's kingdom, and secured its obedience by placing over it a new king, in whom he had confidence, a certain Tubaal¹⁵⁴ (Tob-Baal), probably a Phoenician. At the same time he rearranged the yearly tribute which the cities had to pay to Assyria,¹⁵⁵ probably augmenting it, as a punishment for the long rebellion.

We hear nothing more of Phoenicia during the reign of Sennacherib, except that, shortly after his conquest of the tract about Sidon, he received tribute, not only from the king whom he had just set over that town, but also from Uru-melek, king of Gebal (Byblus), and Abd- ilihit, king of Arvad.¹⁵⁶ The three towns represent, probably, the whole of Phoenicia, Aradus at this time exercising dominion over the northern tract, or that extending from Mount Casius to the Eleutherus, Gebal or Byblus over the central tract from the Eleutherus to the Tamyras, and Sidon, in the temporary eclipse of Tyre, ruling the southern tract from the Tamyrus to Mount Carmel. It appears further,¹⁵⁷ that at some date between this tribute-giving (B.C. 701) and the death of Sennacherib (B.C. 681) Tubaal must have been succeeded in the government of Sidon by Abdi-Milkut, or Abd-Melkarth¹⁵⁸ ({...}), but whether this change was caused by a revolt, or took place in the ordinary course, Tubaal dying and being succeeded by his son, is wholly uncertain.

All that we know is that Esarhaddon, on his accession, found Abd- Melkarth in revolt against his authority. He had formed an alliance with a certain Sanduarri, king of Kundi and Sizu,¹⁵⁹ a prince of the Lebanon, and had set up as independent monarch, probably during the time of the civil way which was waged between Esarhaddon and two of his brothers who disputed his succession after they had murdered his father.¹⁶⁰ As soon as this struggle was over, and the Assyrian monarch found himself free to take his own course, he proceeded at once (B.C. 680) against these two rebels. Both of them tried to escape him. Abd-Melkarth, quitting his capital, fled away by sea, steering probably either for Aradus or for Cyprus. Sanduarri took refuge in his mountain fastnesses. But Esarhaddon was not to be baffled. He caused both chiefs to be pursued and taken. "Abd-Melkarth," he says,¹⁶¹ "who from the face of my solders into the middle of the sea had fled, like a fish from out of the sea, I caught, and cut off his head . . . Sanduarri, who took Abd-Melkarth for his ally, and to his difficult mountains trusted, like a bird from the midst of the mountains, I caught and cut off his head." Sidon was very severely punished. Esarhaddon boasts that he swept away all its subject cities, uprooted its citadel and palace, and cast the materials into the sea, at the same time destroying all its habitations. The town was plundered, the treasures of the palace carried off, and the greater portion of the population deported to Assyria. The blank was filled up with "natives of the lands and seas of the East" --prisoners taken in Esarhaddon's war with Babylon and Elam, who, like the Phoenicians themselves at a remote time, exchanged a residence on the shores of the Persian Gulf for one on the distant Mediterranean. An Assyrian general was placed as governor over the city, and its name changed from Sidon to "Ir-Esarhaddon."

It seems to have been in the course of the same year that Esarhaddon held one of those courts, or /durbars/, in Phoenicia, which all subject monarchs were expected to attend, and whereat it was the custom that they should pay homage to their suzerain. Hither flocked almost all the neighbouring monarchs¹⁶² --Manasseh, king of Judah, Qavus-gabri, king of Ammon, Zilli-bel, king of Gaza, Mitinti of Askelon, Ikasamsu of Ekron, Ahimelek of Ashdod, together with twelve kings of the Cyprians, and three Phoenician monarchs, Baal, king of Tyre, Milki- asaph, king of Gebal, and Mattan-baal, king of Arvad. Tribute was paid, home rendered, and after a short sojourn at the court, the subject-monarchs were dismissed. The foremost position in Esarhaddon's list is occupied by "Baal, king of Tyre;" and this monarch appears to have been received into exceptional favour. He had perhaps been selected by Esarhaddon to rule Southern Phoenicia on the execution of Abd-Melkarth. At any rate, he enjoyed for some time the absolute confidence and high esteem of his suzerain. If we may venture to interpret a mutilated inscription,¹⁶³ he furnished Esarhaddon with a fleet, and manned it with his own sailors. Certainly, he received from Esarhaddon a considerable extension of his dominions. Not only was his authority over Accho recognised and affirmed, but the coast tract south of Carmel, as far as Dor, the important city Gebal, and the entire region of Lebanon, were placed under his sovereignty.¹⁶⁴ The date assigned to these events is between B.C. 680 and B.C. 673. It was in this latter year that the Assyrian monarch resolved on an invasion of Egypt. For fifty years the two countries had been watching each other, counteracting each other's policy, lending support to each other's enemies, coming into occasional collision the one with the other, not, however, as principals, but as partakers in other persons' quarrels. Now, at length there was to be an end of subterfuge and pretences. Esarhaddon, about B.C. 673, resolved to attempt the conquest of Egypt. He "set his face to go to the country of Magan and Milukha."¹⁶⁵ He let his intention be generally known. No doubt he called on his subject allies for contingents of men, if not for supplies of money. To Tyre he must naturally have looked for no niggard or grudging support. What then must have been his disgust and rage at finding that, at the critical moment, Tyre had gone over to the enemy? Notwithstanding the favours heaped on him by his suzerain, "Baal, king of Tyre, to Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, his country entrusted, and the yoke of Asshur threw off and made defiance."¹⁶⁶ Esarhaddon was too strongly bent on his Egyptian expedition to be diverted from it by this defection; but in the year B.C. 672, as he marched through Phoenicia and Palestine on his way to attack Tirhakah, he sent a detachment against Tyre, with orders to his officers to repeat the tactics of Shalmaneser, by occupying points of the coast opposite to the island Tyre, and "cutting off the supplies of food and water."¹⁶⁷ Baal was by this means greatly distressed, and it would seem that within a year or two he made his submission, surrendering either to Esarhaddon or to his son Asshur-bani-pal, in about the year of the latter's accession (B.C. 668). It is surprising to find that he was not deposed from his throne; but as the circumstances seem to have been such as made it imperative on the Assyrian king to condone minor offences in order to accomplish a great enterprise --the restoration of the Assyrian dominion over the Nile valley. Esarhaddon had effected the conquest of Egypt in about the year B.C. 670, and had divided the country into twenty petty principalities;¹⁶⁸ but within a year his yoke had been thrown off, his petty princes expelled, and Tirhakah reinstated as sole monarch over the "Two Regions."¹⁶⁹ It was the determination of Asshur-bani-pal, on becoming king, to strain every nerve and devote his utmost energy to the re-conquest of the ancient kingdom, so lightly won and so lightly lost by his father. Baal's perfidy was thus forgiven or overlooked. A great expedition was prepared. The kings of Phoenicia, Palestine, and Cyprus were bidden once more to assemble, to bring their tribute, and pay homage to their suzerain as he passed on his way at the head of his forces towards the land of the Pharaohs. Baal came, and again holds the post of honour;¹⁷⁰ with him were the king of Judah --doubtless Manasseh, but the name is lost --the kings of Edom, Moab, Gaza, Askelon, Ekron, Gebal, Arvad, Paphos, Soli, Curium, Tamassus, Ammochosta, Lidini, and Aphrodisias, with probably those also of Ammon, Ashdod, Idalium, Citium, and Salamis.¹⁷¹ Each in turn prostrated himself at the foot of the Great Monarch, paid homage, and made profession of fidelity. Asshur-bani-pal then proceeded on his way, and the kings returned to their several governments.

It is about four years after this, B.C. 664, that we find Baal attacked and punished by the Assyrian monarch. The subjugation of Egypt had been in the meantime, though not without difficulty, completed. Asshur-bani-pal's power extended from the range of Niphates to the First Cataract. Whether during the course of the four years' struggle, by which the reconquest of Egypt was effected, the Tyrian prince had given fresh offence to his suzerain, or whether it was the old offence, condoned for a time but never forgiven, that was now avenged, is not made clear by the Assyrian Inscriptions. Asshur-bani- pal simply tells us that, in his third expedition, he proceeded against Baal, king of Tyre, dwelling in the midst of the sea, /who his royal will disregarded, and did not listen to the words of his lips/. "Towers round him," he says, "I raised, and over his people I strengthened the watch; on sea and land his forts I took; his going out I stopped. Water and sea-water, to preserve their lives, their mouths drank. By a strong blockade, which removed not, I besieged them; their works I checked and opposed; to my yoke I made them submissive. The daughter proceeding from his body, and the daughters of his brothers, for concubines he brought to my presence. Yahi-milki, his son, the glory of the country, of unsurpassed renown, at once he sent forward, to make obeisance to me. His daughter, and the daughters of his brothers, with their great dowries, I received. Favour I granted him, and the son proceeding from his body, I restored, and gave him back."¹⁷² Thus Baal once more escaped the fate he must have expected. Asshur-bani-pal, who was far from being of a clement disposition, suffered himself to be appeased by the submission made, restored Baal to his favour, and allowed him to retain possession of his sovereignty.

Another Phoenician monarch also was, about the same time, threatened and pardoned. This was Yakinlu, the king of Arvad, probably the son and successor of Mattan-Baal, the contemporary of Esarhaddon.¹⁷³ He is accused of having been wanting in submission to Asshur-bani-pal's fathers;¹⁷⁴ but we may regard it as probable that his real offence was some failure in his duties towards Asshur-bani-pal himself. Either he had openly rebelled, and declared himself independent, or he had neglected to pay his tribute, or he had given recent offence in some other way. The Phoenician island kings were always more neglectful of their duties than others, since it was more difficult to punish them. Assyria did not even now possess any regular fleet, and could only punish a recalcitrant king of Arvad or Tyre by impressing into her service the ships of some of the Phoenician coast-towns, as Sidon, or Gebal, or Accho. These towns were not very zealous in such a service, and probably did not maintain strong navies, having little use for them. Thus Yakinlu may have expected that his neglect, whatever it was, would be overlooked. But Asshur-bani-pal was jealous of his rights, and careful not to allow any of them to lapse by disuse. He let his displeasure be known at the court of Yakinlu, and very shortly received an embassy of submission. Like Baal, Yakinlu sent a daughter to take her place among the great king's secondary wives, and with her he sent a large sum of money, in the disguise of a dowry.¹⁷⁵ The tokens of subjection were accepted, and Yakinlu was allowed to continue king of Arvad. When, not long afterwards, he died,¹⁷⁶ and his ten sons sought the court of Nineveh to prefer their claims to the succession, they were received with favour. Azi-Baal, the eldest, was appointed to the vacant kingdom, while his nine brothers were presented by Asshur-bani-pal with "costly clothing, and rings."¹⁷⁷

Two other revolts of two other Phoenician towns belong to a somewhat later period. On his return from an expedition against Arabia, about B.C. 645, Asshur-bani-pal found that Hosah, a small place in the vicinity of Tyre,¹⁷⁸ and Accho, famous as Acre in later times, had risen in revolt against their Assyrian governors, refused their tribute, and asserted independence.¹⁷⁹ He at once besieged, and soon captured, Hosah. The leaders of the rebellion he put to death; the plunder of the town, including the images of its gods, and the bulk of its population, he carried off into Assyria. The people of Accho, he says, he "quieted." It is a common practice of conquerors "to make a solitude and call it peace." Asshur-bani-pal appears to have punished Accho, first by a wholesale massacre, and then by the deportation of all its remaining inhabitants.

It is evident from this continual series of revolts and rebellions that, however mild had been the sway of Assyria over her Phoenician subjects in the earlier times, it had by degrees become a hateful and a grinding tyranny. Commercial states, bent upon the accumulation of wealth, do not without grave cause take up arms and affront the perils of war, much less do so when their common sense must tell them that success is almost absolutely hopeless, and that failure will bring about their destruction. The Assyrian were a hard race. Such tenderness as they ever showed to any subject people was, we may be sure, in every case dictated by policy. While their power was unsettled, while they feared revolts, and were uncertain as to their consequences, their attitude towards their dependents was conciliating. When they became fully conscious of the immense preponderance of power which they wielded, and of the inability of the petty states of Asia to combine against them in any firm league, they grew careless and confident, reckless of giving offence, ruder in their behaviour, more grasping in their exactions, more domineering, more oppressive. Prudence should perhaps have counselled the Phoenician cities to submit, to be yielding and pliant, to cultivate the arts of the parasite and the flatterer; but the people had still a rough honesty about them. It was against the grain to flatter or submit themselves; constant voyages over wild seas in fragile vessels kept up their manhood; constant encounters with pirates, cannibals, and the rudest possible savages made them brave and daring; exposure to storm, and cold, and heat braced their frames; the nautical life developed and intensified in them a love of freedom. The Phoenician of Assyrian times was not to be coaxed into accepting patiently the lot of a slave. Suffer as he might by his revolts, they won him a certain respect; it is likely that they warded off many an indignity, many an outrage. The Assyrian knew that his endurance could not be reckoned on beyond a certain point, and they knew that in his death-throes he was dangerous. The Phoenicians probably suffered considerably less than the other subject nations under Assyrian rule; and the maritime population, which was the salt of the people, suffered least of all, since it was scarcely ever brought into contact with its nominal rulers.

4. Phoenicia during its struggles with Babylon and Egypt (about B.C. 635-527)

Decline of Assyria --Scythic troubles --Fall of Nineveh --Union of the Phoenician cities under Tyre --Invasion of Phoenicia by Neco --Battle of Megiddo --Submission of Phoenicia to Neco --Tyrian colony at Memphis --Conquest of Phoenicia by Nebuchadnezzar --Reign of Ithobal II. at Tyre --He revolts from Nebuchadnezzar but is reduced to subjection --Decline of Tyre --General weakness of Phoenicia under Babylon.

It is impossible to fix the year in which Phoenicia became independent of Assyria. The last trace of Assyrian interference, in the way of compulsion, with any of the towns belongs to B.C. 645, when she severely punished Hosah and Accho. The latest sign of her continued domination is found in B.C. 636, when the Assyrian governor of a Phoenician town, Zimirra, appears in the list of Eponyms.¹⁸⁰ It must have been very soon after this that the empire became involved in those troubles and difficulties which led on to its dissolution. According to Herodotus,¹⁸¹ Cyaxares, king of Media, laid siege to Nineveh in B.C. 633, or very soon afterwards. His attack did not at once succeed; but it was almost immediately followed by the irruption into South-western Asia of Scythic hordes from beyond the Caucasus, which overran country after country, destroying and ravaging at their pleasure.¹⁸² The reality of this invasion is now generally admitted. "It was the earliest recorded," says a modern historian, "of those movements of the northern populations, hid behind the long mountain barrier, which, under the name of Himalaya, Caucasus, Taurus, Hæmus, and the Alps, has been reared by nature between the civilised and uncivilised races of the old world. Suddenly, above this boundary, appeared those strange, uncouth, fur-clad forms, hardly to be distinguished from their horses and their waggons, fierce as their own wolves or bears, sweeping towards the southern regions, which seemed to them their natural prey. The successive invasions of Parthians, Turks, Mongols in Asia, of Gauls, Goths, Vandals, Huns in Europe, have, it is well said, 'illustrated the law, and made us familiar with its operations. But there was a time in history before it had come into force, and when its very existence must have been unsuspected. Even since it began to operate, it has so often undergone prolonged suspension that the wisest may be excused if they cease to bear it in mind, and are as much startled when a fresh illustration of it occurs, as if the like had never happened before.'¹⁸³ No wonder that now, when the veil was for the first time rent asunder, all the ancient monarchies of the South --Assyria, Babylon, Media, Egypt, even Greece and Asia Minor --stood aghast at the spectacle of these savage hordes rushing down on the seats of luxury and power."¹⁸⁴ Assyria seems to have suffered from the attack almost as much as any other country. The hordes probably swarmed down from Media through the Zagros passes into the most fruitful portion of the empire --the flat country between the mountains and the Tigris. Many of the old cities, rich with the accumulated stores of ages, were besieged, and perhaps taken, and their palaces wantonly burnt by the barbarous invaders. The tide then swept on. Wandering from district to district, plundering everywhere, settling nowhere, the clouds of horse passed over Mesopotamia, the force of the invasion becoming weaker as it spread itself, until in Phoenicia it reached its term through the policy of the Egyptian king, Psamatik I. That monarch bribed the nomads to advance no further,¹⁸⁵ and from this time their power began to wane. Their numbers must have been greatly thinned in the long course of battles, sieges, and skirmishes wherein they were engaged year after year; they suffered also through their excesses;¹⁸⁶ and perhaps through intestine dissensions. At last they recognised that their power was broken. Many bands probably returned across the Caucasus into the Steppe country. Others submitted and took service under the native rulers of Asia.¹⁸⁷ Great numbers were slain, and, except in a province of Armenia, which thenceforward became known as Sacasêné,¹⁸⁸ and perhaps in one Eastern Mediterranean town, which acquired the name of Scythopolis,¹⁸⁹ the invaders left no permanent trace of their brief but terrible inroad.

The shock of the Scythian irruption cannot but have greatly injured and weakened Assyria. The whole country had been ravaged and depopulated; the provinces had been plundered, many of the towns had been taken and sacked, the palaces of the old kings had been burnt,¹⁹⁰ and all the riches that had not been hid away had been lost. Assyria, when the Scythian wave had passed, was but the shadow of her former self. Her /prestige/ was gone, her armed force must have been greatly diminished, her hold upon the provinces, especially the more distant ones, greatly weakened. Phoenicia is likely to have detached herself from Assyria at latest during the time that the Scyths were dominant, which was probably from about B.C. 630 to B.C. 610. When Assyrian protection was withdrawn from Phoenicia, as it must have been during this period, and when every state and town had to look solely to itself for deliverance from a barbarous and cruel enemy, the fiction of a nominal dependence on a distant power could scarcely be maintained. Without any actual revolt, the Phoenician cities became their own masters, and the speedy fall of Assyria before the combined attack of the Medes and Babylonians,¹⁹¹ after the Scythians had withdrawn, prevented for some time any interference with their recovered independence.

A double danger, however, impended. On the one side Egypt, on the other Babylon, might be confidently expected to lay claim to the debatable land which nature had placed between the seats of the great Asiatic and the great African power, and which in the past had almost always been possessed by the one or the other of them. Egypt was the nearer of the two, and probably seemed the most to be feared. She had recently fallen under the power of an enterprising native monarch, who had already, before the fall of Assyria, shown that he entertained ambitious designs against the Palestinian towns, having begun attacks upon Ashdod soon after he ascended the throne.¹⁹² Babylon was, comparatively speaking, remote and had troublesome neighbours, who might be expected to prevent her from undertaking distant expeditions. It was clearly the true policy for Phoenicia to temporise, to enter into no engagements with either Babylon or Egypt, to strengthen her defences, to bide her time, and, so far as possible, to consolidate herself. Something like a desire for consolidation would seem to have come over the people; and Tyre, the leading city in all but the earliest times, appears to have been recognised as the centre towards which other states must gravitate, and to have risen to the occasion. If there ever was such a thing as a confederation of all the Phoenician cities, it would seem to have been at this period. Sidon forgot her ancient rivalry, and consented to furnish the Tyrian fleet with mariners.¹⁹³ Arvad gave not only rowers to man the ships, but also men-at-arms to help in guarding the walls.¹⁹⁴ The "ancients of Gebal" lent their aid in the Tyrian dockyards.¹⁹⁵ The minor cities cannot have ventured to hold aloof. Tyre, as the time approached for the contest which was to decide whether Egypt or Babylon should be the great power of the East, appears to have reached the height of her strength, wealth, and prosperity. It is now that Ezekial says of her -- "O Tyrus, thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God in the midst of the seas --Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel, there is no secret that they can hide from thee: from thy wisdom and with thine understanding hast thou gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: by thy great wisdom and by thy traffick thou hast increased thy riches, and thy heart is lifted up because of thy riches"¹⁹⁶; and again, "O thou that are situated at the entry of the sea, which art the merchant of the peoples unto many isles, thus saith the Lord God, Thou, O Tyre, hast said, I am perfect in beauty. Thy borders are in the heart of the sea; thy builders have perfected thy beauty. They have made all thy planks of fir-trees from Senir; they have taken from Lebanon cedars to make masts for thee; of the oaks of Bashan have they made thine oars; they have made thy benches of ivory, inlaid in boxwood, from the isles of Kittim . . . The ships of Tarshish were thy caravans for thy merchandise; and thou wast replenished, and made very glorious in the heart of the sea."¹⁹⁷

The first to strike of the two great antagonists was Egypt. Psamatik I., who was advanced in years at the time of Assyria's downfall,¹⁹⁸ died about B.C. 610, and was succeeded by a son still in the full vigour of life, the brave and enterprising Neco. Neco, in B.C. 608, having made all due preparations, led a great expedition into Palestine,¹⁹⁹ with the object of bringing under his dominion the entire tract between the River of Egypt (Wady el Arish) and the Middle Euphrates. Already possessed of Ashdod²⁰⁰ and perhaps also of Gaza²⁰¹ and Askelon,²⁰² he held the keys of Phoenicia, and could have no difficulty in penetrating along the coast route, through the rich plain of Sharon, to the first of the mountain barriers which are interposed between the Nile and the Mesopotamian region. His famous fleet²⁰³ would support him along the shore, at any rate as far Carmel; and Dor and Accho would probably be seized, and made into depôts for his stores and provisions. The powerful Egyptian monarch marching northward with his numerous and well-disciplined army, partly composed of native troops, partly of mercenaries from Asia Minor, Greeks and Carians, probably did not look to meet with any opposition, till, somewhere in Northern Phoenicia, he should encounter the forces of Babylonia, which would of course be moved westward to meet him. What then must have been his surprise when he found the ridge connecting Carmel with the highland of Samaria occupied by a strong body of troops, and his further progress barred by a foe who had appeared to him too insignificant to be taken into account? Josiah, the Jewish monarch of the time, grandson of Manasseh and great-grandson of Hezekiah, who, in the unsettled state of Western Asia, had united under his dominion the entire country of the twelve tribes,²⁰⁴ had quitted Jerusalem, and thrown himself across the would-be conqueror's path in the strong and well-known position of Megiddo. Here, in remote times, had the great Thothmes met and defeated the whole force of Phoenicia and Mesopotamia under the king of Kadesh;²⁰⁵ here had Deborah and Barak, the son of Abinoam, utterly destroyed the mighty army of Jabin, king of Canaan, under Sisera.²⁰⁶ Here now the gallant, if rash, Judæan king elected to take his stand, moved either by a sense of duty, because he regarded himself as a Babylonian feudatory, or simply determined to defend the Holy Land against any heathen army that, without permission, trespassed on it. In vain did Neco seek to induce Josiah to retire and leave the way open, by assuring him that he had no hostile intentions against Judæa, but was marching on Carchemish by the Euphrates, there to contend with the Babylonians.²⁰⁷ The Jewish king persisted in his rash enterprise, and Neco was forced to brush him from his path. His seasoned and disciplined troops easily overcame the hasty levies of Josiah; and Josiah himself fell in the battle.

We have no details with respect to the remainder of the expedition. Neco, no doubt, pressed forward through Galilee and Cœle-Phoenicia towards the Euphrates. Whether he had to fight any further battles we are not informed. It is certain that he occupied Carchemish,²⁰⁸ and made it his headquarters, but whether it submitted to him, or was besieged and taken, is unknown. All Phoenicia, Phoenicia, and Palestine were overrun, and became temporarily Egyptian possessions.²⁰⁹ But Phoenicia does not appear to have been subdued by force. Tyrian prosperity continued, and the terms on which Phoenicia stood towards Egypt during the remainder of Neco's reign were friendly. Phoenicians at Neco's request accomplished the circumnavigation of Africa;²¹⁰ and we may suspect that it was Neco who granted to Tyre the extraordinary favour of settling a colony in the Egyptian capital, Memphis.²¹¹ Probably Phoenicia accepted at the hands of Neco the same sort of position which she had at first occupied under Assyria, a position, as already explained, satisfactory to both parties.

But the glory and prosperity which Egypt had thus acquired were very short-lived. Within three years Babylonia asserted herself. In B.C. 605, the crown prince, Nebuchadnezzar, acting on behalf of his father, Nabopolassar, who was aged and infirm,²¹² led the forces of Babylon against the audacious Pharaoh, who had dared to affront the "King of kings," "the Lord of Sumir and Accad," had taken him off his guard, and deprived him of some of his fairest provinces. Babylonia, under Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, was no unworthy successor of the mighty power which for seven hundred years had held the supremacy of Western Asia. Her citizens were as brave; her armies as well disciplined; her rulers as bold, as sagacious, and as unsparing. Habakkuk's description of a Babylonian army belongs to about this date, and is probably drawn from the life --"Lo, I raise up the Chaldæans, that bitter and hasty nation, which shall march through the breadth of the land, to possess the dwelling-places that are not theirs. They are terrible and dreadful; from them shall proceed judgment and captivity; their horses are swifter than leopards, and are more fierce than the evening wolves; and their horsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall fly as the eagle that hasteth to eat. They shall come all for violence; their faces shall sup as the east wind, and they shall gather the captivity as the sand. And they shall scoff at kings, and princes shall be a scorn unto them; they shall derive every stronghold; for they shall heap dust, and take it."²¹³ Early in the year B.C. 605 the host of Nebuchadnezzar appeared on the right bank of the Euphrates, moving steadily along its reaches, and day by day approaching nearer and nearer to the great fortress in and behind which lay the army of Neco, well ordered with shield and buckler, its horses harnessed, and its horsemen armed with spears that had been just furbished, and protected by helmets and brigandines.²¹⁴ One of the "decisive battles of the world" was impending. If Egypt conquered, Oriental civilisation would take the heavy immovable Egyptian type; change, advance, progress would be hindered; sacerdotalism in religion, conventionalism in art, pure unmitigated despotism in government would generally prevail; all the throbbing life of Asia would receive a sudden and violent check; Semitism would be thrust back; Aryanism, just pushing itself to the front, would shrink away; the monotonous Egyptian tone of thought and life would spread, like a lava stream, over the manifold and varied forms of Asiatic culture; crushing them out, concealing them, making them as though they had never been. The victory of Babylon, on the other hand, would mean room for Semitism to develop itself, and for Aryanism to follow in its wake; fresh stirs of population and of thought in Asia; further advances in the arts; variety, freshness, growth; the continuance of the varied lines of Oriental study and investigation until such time as would enable Grecian intellect to take hold of them, sift them, and assimilate whatever in them was true, valuable, and capable of expansion.

We have no historical account of the great battle of Carchemish. Jeremiah, however, beholds it in vision. He sees the Egyptians "dismayed and turned away back --their mighty ones are beaten down, and are fled apace, and look not back, since fear is round about them."²¹⁵ He sees the "swift flee away," and the "mighty men" attempting to "escape;" but they "stumble and fall toward the north by the river Euphrates."²¹⁶ "For this is the day of the Lord God of hosts, a day of vengeance, that He may avenge Him of His adversaries; and the sword devours, and it is satiate and made drunk with their blood, for the Lord God of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates."²¹⁷ The "valiant men" are "swept away" -- "many fall --yea, one falls upon another, and they say, Arise and let us go again to our own people, and to the land of our nativity from the oppressing sword."²¹⁸ Nor do the mercenaries escape. "Her hired men are in the midst of her, like fatted bullocks; for they also are turned back, and are fled away together; they did not stand because the day of their calamity was come upon them, and the time of their visitation."²¹⁹ The defeat was, beyond a doubt, complete, overwhelming. The shock of it was felt all over the Delta, at Memphis, and even at distant Thebes.²²⁰ The hasty flight of the entire Egyptian host left the whole country open to the invading army. "Like a whirlwind, like a torrent, it swept on. The terrified inhabitants retired into the fortified cities,"²²¹ where for the time they were safe. Nebuchadnezzar did not stop to commence any siege. He pursued Neco up to the very frontier of Egypt, and would have continued his victorious career into the Nile valley, had not important intelligence arrested his steps. His aged father had died at Babylon while he was engaged in his conquests, and his immediate return to the capital was necessary, if he would avoid a disputed succession.²²² Thus matters in Phoenicia had to be left in a confused and unsettled state, until such time as the Great King could revisit the scene of his conquests, and place them upon some definite and satisfactory footing.

On the whole, the campaign had, apparently, the effect of drawing closer the links which united Phoenicia with Egypt.²²³ Babylon had shown herself a fierce and formidable enemy, but had disgusted men more than she had terrified them. It was clear enough that she would be a hard mistress, a second and crueller Assyria. There was thus, on Nebuchadnezzar's departure, a general gravitation of the Eastern Mediterranean and Palestinian states towards Egypt, since they saw in her the only possible protector against Babylon, and dreaded her less than they did the "bitter and hasty nation."²²⁴ Neco, no doubt, encouraged the movement which tended at once to strengthen himself and weaken his antagonist; and the result was that, in the course of a few years, both Judæa and Phoenicia revolted from Nebuchadnezzar, and declared themselves independent. Phoenicia was still under the hegemony of Tyre, and Tyre had at its head an enterprising prince, a second Ithobal,²²⁵ who had developed its resources to the uttermost, and was warmly supported by the other cities.²²⁶ His revolt appears to have taken place in the year B.C. 598, the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar.²²⁷ Nebuchadnezzar at once marched against him in person. The sieges of Tyre, Sidon, and Jerusalem were formed. Jerusalem submitted almost immediately.²²⁸ Sidon was taken after losing half her defenders by pestilence;²²⁹ but Tyre continued to resist for the long space of thirteen years.²³⁰ The continental city was probably taken first. Against this Nebuchadnezzar could freely employ his whole force --his "horses, his chariots, his companies, and his much people" --he could bring moveable forts close up to the walls, and cast up banks against them, and batter them with his engines, or undermine them with spade and mattock. When a breach was effected, he could pour his horse into the streets, and ride down all opposition. It is the capture of the continental city which Ezekiel describes when he says:²³¹ "Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people. He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field; and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee. And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers. By reason of the abundance of his horses, their dust shall cover thee; thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horseman, and of the wheels and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach. With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground. And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise; and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water." But the island city did not escape. When continental Phoenicia was reduced, it was easy to impress a fleet from maritime towns; to man it, in part with Phoenicians, in part with Babylonians, no mean sailors,²³² and then to establish a blockade of the isle. Tyre may more than once have crippled and dispersed the blockading squadron; but by a moderate expenditure fresh fleets could be supplied, while Tyre, cut off from Lebanon, would find it difficult to increase or renew her navy. There has been much question whether the island city was ultimately captured by Nebuchadnezzar or no; but even writers who take the negative view²³³ admit that it must have submitted and owned the suzerainty of its assailant. The date of the submission was B.C. 585.

Thus Tyre, in B.C. 585, "fell from her high estate." Ezekiel's prophecies were fulfilled. Ithobal II., the "prince of Tyrus" of those prophecies,²³⁴ whose "head had been lifted up," and who had said in his heart, "I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the waters," who deemed himself "wiser than Daniel," and thought that no secret was hid from him, was "brought down to the pit," "cast to the ground," "brought to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that beheld him."²³⁵ Tyre herself was "broken in the midst of the seas."²³⁶ A blight fell upon her. For many years, Sidon, rather than Tyre, became once more the leading city of Phoenicia, was regarded as pre-eminent in naval skill,²³⁷ and is placed before Tyre when the two are mentioned together.²³⁸ Internal convulsion, moreover, followed upon external decline. Within ten years of the death of Ithobal, the monarchy came to an end by a revolution,²³⁹ which substituted for Kings Suffetes or Shophetim, "judges," officers of an inferior status, whose tenure of office was not very assured. Ecnibal, the son of Baslach, the first judge, held the position for no more than two months; Chelbes, the son of Abdæus, who followed him, ruled for ten months; Abbarus, a high priest, probably of Melkarth, for three months. Then, apparently to weaken the office, it was shared between two, as at Carthage, and Mytgon (perhaps Mattan), together with Ger-ashtoreth, the son of Abd-elim, judged Tyre for six years. But the partisans of monarchy were now recovering strength; and the reign of a king, Balator, was intruded at some point in the course of the six years' judgeship. Judges were then abolished by a popular movement, and kings of the old stock restored. The Tyrians sent to Babylon for a certain Merbal, who must have been either a refugee or a hostage at the court of Neriglissar. He was allowed to return to Tyre, and, being confirmed in the sovereignty, reigned four years. His brother, Eirom, or Hiram, succeeded him, and was still upon the throne when the Empire of Babylon came to an end by the victory of Cyrus over Nabonidus (B.C. 538).

Phoenicia under the Babylonian rule was exceptionally weak. She had to submit to attacks from Egypt under Apries, which fell probably in the reign of Baal over Tyre, about B.C. 565. She had also to submit to the loss of Cyprus under Amasis,²⁴⁰ probably about B.C. 540, or a little earlier, when the power of Babylon was rapidly declining. She had been, from first to last, an unwilling tributary of the Great Empire on the Lower Euphrates, and was perhaps not sorry to see that empire go down before the rising power of Persia. Under the circumstances she would view any chance as likely to advance her interests, and times of disturbance and unsettlement gave her the best chance of obtaining a temporary independence. From B.C. 538 to B.C. 528 or 527 she seems to have enjoyed one of these rare intervals of autonomy. Egypt, content with having annexed Cyprus, did not trouble her; Persia, engaged in wars in the far East,²⁴¹ made as yet no claim to her allegiance. In peace and tranquillity she pursued her commercial career, covered the seas with her merchant vessels, and the land-routes of trade with her caravans, repaired the damages inflicted by Nebuchadnezzar on her cities; maintained, if she did not even increase, her naval strength, and waited patiently to see what course events would take now that Babylon was destroyed, and a new and hitherto unknown power was about to assume the first position among the nations of the earth.

5. Phoenicia under the Persians (B.C. 528-333)

Phoenicia not claimed by Cyrus --Submits willingly to Cambyses -- Takes part in his invasion of Egypt --Refuses to proceed against Carthage --Exceptional privileges enjoyed by the Phoenicians under the Persians --Government system of Darius advantageous to them -- Their conduct in the Ionian revolt --In the expeditions of Mardonius and Datis --In the great expedition of Xerxes -- Interruption of the friendly relations between Phoenicia and Persia --Renewal of amity --Services rendered to Persia between B.C. 465 and 392 --Amicable relations with Athens --Phoenicia joins in revolt of Evagoras --Supports Tachos, king of Egypt --Declares herself independent under Tennes --Conquered and treated with great severity of Ochus --Sidonian dynasty of the Esmunazars.

The conquest of Babylon by Cyrus gave him, according to Oriental notions generally, a claim to succeed to the inheritance of the entire Babylonian empire; but the claim would remain dormant until it was enforced. The straggling character of the territory, which was shaped like a Greek {L}, ascending from Babylon along the course of the Euphrates to the Armenian mountains, and then descending along the line of the Mediterranean coast as far as Gaza or Raphia, rendered the enforcement of the claim a work of difficulty, more especially in the remote West, which was distant fifteen hundred miles from Persia Proper, and more than a thousand miles from Babylon. Cyrus, moreover, was prevented, first by wars in his immediate neighbourhood,²⁴² and later on by a danger upon his north-eastern frontier,²⁴³ from taking the steps usually taken by a conqueror to establish his dominion in a newly-annexed region, and thus he neither occupied Phoenicia with troops, nor placed it under the administration of Persian governors. The only step which, so far as we know, he took, implying that his authority reached so far, was the commission which he gave to Zerubbabel and the other chiefs of the Jewish nation to proceed from Babylonia to Judæa, and re-establish themselves, if they could, on the site of the destroyed Jerusalem.²⁴⁴ The return from the Captivity which followed was in some sense the occupation of a portion of the extreme West by a Persian garrison, and may be viewed as a step intended to be "preparatory towards obtaining possession of the entire sea- coast;"²⁴⁵ but it appears to have been an isolated movement, effected without active Persian support, and one whereby the neighbouring countries were only slightly affected.

That Phoenicia retained her independence until the reign of Cambyses is distinctly implied, if not actually asserted, by Herodotus.²⁴⁶ She saw without any displeasure the re-establishment in her neighbourhood of a nation with which her intercourse had always been friendly, and sometimes close and cordial. Tyre and Sidon vied with each other in their readiness to supply the returned exiles with the timber which they needed for the rebuilding of their temple and city; and once more, as in the days of Solomon, the Jewish axes were heard amid the groves of Lebanon, and the magnificent cedars of that favoured region were cut down, conveyed to the coast, and made into floats or rafts, which Phoenician mariners transported by sea to Joppa, the nearest seaport to Jerusalem.²⁴⁷ In return, the Jews willingly rendered to the Phoenicians such an amount of corn, wine, and oil as was equivalent in value to the timber received from them,²⁴⁸ and thus the relations between the two peoples were replaced on a footing which recalled the time of their closest friendship, nearly five hundred years previously.

On the death of Cyrus, and the accession of his son Cambyses, B.C. 529, the tranquillity which South-western Asia had enjoyed since the time of the wars of Nebuchadnezzar came to an end. Cyrus had, it is said, designed an expedition against Egypt,²⁴⁹ as necessary to round off his conquests, and Cambyses naturally inherited his father's projects. He had no sooner mounted the throne than he commenced preparations for an attack upon the ancient kingdom of the Pharaohs, which, under the dynasty of the Psamatiks, had risen to something of its early greatness, and had been especially wealthy and prosperous under the usurper Amasis.²⁵⁰ It was impossible to allow an independent and rival monarchy so close upon his borders, and equally impossible to shrink from an enterprise which had been carried to a successful issue both by Assyria and by Babylon. Persian prestige required the subjugation and absorption of a country which, though belonging geographically to Africa, was politically and commercially an integral part of that Western Asia over which Persia claimed a complete and absolute supremacy.

The march upon Egypt implied and required the occupation of the Mediterranean seaboard. No armies of any considerable size have ever attempted to traverse the almost waterless desert which separates the Lower Euphrates valley from the delta of the Nile. Light /corps d'armée/ have no doubt occasionally passed from Circesium by way of Tadmor to Damascus, and /vice versâ/;²⁵¹ but the ordinary line of route pursued by conquerors follows the course of the Euphrates to Carchemish, then strikes across the chalky upland in the middle of which stands the city of Aleppo, and finally descends upon Egypt by way of the Orontes, the Cœle-Eastern Mediterranean valley, and the plains of Sharon and Philistia.²⁵² This was undoubtedly the line followed by Cambyses,²⁵³ and it necessarily brought him into contact with the Phoenicians. The contact was not an hostile one. It would have been madness on the part of the Phoenicians to have attempted any resistance to the vast host with which Cambyses, we may be sure, made his invasion, and it would have been folly on the part of Cambyses to employ force when he could better obtain his object by persuasion. It must have been a very special object with him to obtain the hearty co-operation of the Phoenician naval forces in the attack which he was meditating, since he would otherwise have had no fleet at all capable of coping with the fleet of Egypt. Neco had made Egypt a strong naval power;²⁵⁴ Apries had contented for naval supremacy in the Eastern Mediterranean with Tyre;²⁵⁵ Amasis had made an expedition by sea against Cyprus, had crushed whatever resistance the Cyprians were able to offer, had permanently occupied the island,²⁵⁶ and added the Cyprian fleet to his own. Cambyses had as yet no ships, except such as he could procure from the Greek cities of Asia Minor, which were not likely to be very zealous in his service, since they had friends engaged upon the other side.²⁵⁷ Accordingly, the Persian monarch seems to have made friendly overtures to the Phoenician states, which were received with favour, and led to an arrangement satisfactory to both parties. Phoenicia surrendered the independence which it was impossible for her to maintain, and placed her fleet at the disposal of Persia.²⁵⁸ Persia spared her cities any occupation, imposed on her a light tribute, and allowed her that qualified independence which is implied in the retention of her native princes. From first to last under the Persian /régime/, Phoenician monarchs bear rule in the Phoenician cities,²⁵⁹ and command the contingents which the cities furnish to any combined Persian fleet.

The friendly arrangement concluded between Phoenicia and Persia was followed, very naturally, by a further accession to the Persian power. Cyprus, whose population was in great part Phoenician, had for centuries been connected politically in the closest manner with the Phoenician towns on the Asiatic mainland, especially with Tyre and Sidon. Her enslavement by Amasis must have been hateful to her, and she must have been only too glad to see an opportunity of shaking off the Egyptian yoke. Accordingly, no sooner did the Phoenicians of the mainland conclude the arrangement by which they became part and parcel of the Persian Empire than the Cyprians followed their example, and, revolting from Egypt, offered themselves of their own free will to Persia.²⁶⁰ Cambyses, it is needless to say, readily accepted them as his subjects.

The invasion of Egypt could now be taken in hand with every prospect of a successful issue. The march of the land army along the shore would be supported by a parallel movement on the part of a powerful fleet, which would carry its provisions and its water, explore the country in front, and give notice of the movements of the enemy, and of the place where they proposed to make a stand in force. When Egypt was reached the fleet would command all the navigable mouths of the Nile, would easily establish a blockade of all ports, and might even mount the Nile and take a part in the siege of Memphis. It would seem that all these services were rendered to the Persian monarch by the great fleet which he had collected, of which the Phoenician ships were recognised as the main strength. The rapid conquest of Egypt was in this way much facilitated, and Cambyses within a twelvemonth found himself in possession of the entire country within its recognised limits of the Mediterranean and "the tower of Syêné."²⁶¹

But the Great King was not satisfied with a single, albeit a magnificent, achievement. He had accomplished in one short campaign what it took the Assyrian ten years, and Nebuchadnezzar eighteen years, to effect. But he now set his heart on further conquests. "He designed," says Herodotus,²⁶² "three great expeditions. One was to be against the Carthaginians, another against the Ammonians, and a third against the long-lived Ethopians, who dwelt in that part of Lybia which borders upon the southern sea." The expedition against the Carthaginians is the only one of the three which here concerns us: it was to be entrusted to the fleet. Instead of conducting, or sending, a land force along the seaboard of North Africa, which was probably known to be for the most part barren and waterless, Cambyses judged that it would be sufficient to dispatch his powerful navy against the Liby-Phoenician colony, which he supposed would submit or else be subjugated. But on broaching this plan to the leaders of the fleet he was met with a determined opposition. The Phoenicians positively refused to proceed against their own colonists. They urged that they were bound to the Carthaginians by most solemn oaths, and that it would be as wicked and unnatural for them to execute the king's orders as for parents to destroy their own children.²⁶³ It was a bold act to run counter to the will of a despotic monarch, especially of one so headstrong and impetuous as Cambyses. But the Phoenicians were firm, and the monarch yielded. "He did not like," Herodotus says, "to force the war upon the Phoenicians, because they had surrendered themselves to the Persians, and because on the Phoenicians his entire sea-service depended." He therefore allowed their opposition to prevail, and desisted from his proposed undertaking.²⁶⁴

This acquiescence in their wishes on the part of the Great King, and his abstinence from any attempt at compulsion, would seem to have paved the way for that thoroughly good understanding between the suzerain power and her dependency which characterises the relations of the two for the next century and a half, with the single exception of one short interval. "The navy of Phoenicia became a regular and very important part of the public power"²⁶⁵ of the Persian state. Complete confidence was felt by their Persian masters in the fidelity, attachment, and hearty good-will of the Phoenician people. Exceptional favour was shown them. Not only were they allowed to maintain their native kings, their municipal administration, their national laws and religion, but they were granted exceptional honours and exceptional privileges and immunities. The Great King maintained a park and royal residence in some portion of Phoenicia,²⁶⁶ probably in the vicinity of Sidon,²⁶⁷ and no doubt allowed his faithful subjects to bask occasionally in the sunshine of his presence. When the internal organisation of the empire was taken in hand, and something approaching to a uniform system of government established for revenue purposes, though Phoenicia could not be excused from contributing to the taxation of the empire, yet the burden laid upon her seems to have been exceptionally light. United in a satrapy and taxed according to her population rather than according to her wealth, she paid a share --probably not more than a third or a fourth --of 350 talents,²⁶⁸ or an annual contribution to the needs of the empire amounting to no less than 30,000l. Persia, moreover, encouraged Phoenicia to establish an internal organisation of her own, and, under her suzerainty, Tyre, Sidon, and Aradus were united by federal bonds, and had a common council, which met at Tripolis, probably of three hundred members.²⁶⁹ This council debated matters in which Phoenicia generally was interested, and, in times of disturbance, decided questions of peace and war.

The reign of Darius Hystaspis (B.C. 521-486), the successor of Cambyses upon the Persian throne, introduced several changes into the Persian governmental system which were of advantage to the Phoenicians. Darius united the most distant parts of his empire by postal routes, along which at moderate intervals were maintained post-houses, with relays of horses,²⁷⁰ primarily for the use of the government, but at the service of the traveller or private trader when not needed for business of state. Phoenician commerce must have been much helped by these arrangements, which facilitated rapid communication, gave security to lines of route which had been previously infested with robbers, and provided resting-places for the companies of merchants and traders, not unlike the caravanserai of modern Turkey and Persia.

Darius also established throughout his vast empire a uniform coinage, based apparently on that which had previously prevailed in Lydia. His "darics," as they were called by the Greeks, were, in the first instance, gold coins of a rude type, a little heavier than our sovereigns, weighing between 123 and 124 grains troy.²⁷¹ They bore the figure of an archer on the obverse, and on the reverse a very rough and primitive /quadratum incusum/. Darius must have coined them in vast abundance, since early in the reign of his successor a single individual of no great eminence had accumulated as many as 3,993,000 of them.²⁷² Subsequently to the introduction of the gold darics, a silver coinage was issued, originally (we are told) in Egypt by a Persian satrap called Aryandes,²⁷³ but afterwards by the central government. The name of "daric" was extended to these coins also, which, however, were much larger and heavier than the gold coins, weighing as much as 235 grains, and corresponding to the Greek tetradrachm, and (nearly) to the Hebrew shekel. The establishment of this excellent circulating medium, and the wide extension which it almost immediately attained, must have given an enormous stimulus to trade, and have been found of the greatest convenience by the Phoenician merchants, who had no longer to carry with them the precious metal in bars or ingots, and to weigh their gold and silver in the balance in connection with every purchase that they made, but could effect both sales and purchases in the simple and commodious manner still in use among all civilised nations at the present day.

Under these circumstances we can well understand that the Phoenicians were thoroughly satisfied with the position which they occupied under the earlier Persian kings, and strove zealously to maintain and extend the empire to which they owed so much. Their fidelity was put to a crucial test after they had been subjects of Darius Hystaspis for a little more than twenty years, and had had about fourteen or fifteen years' experience of the advantages of his governmental system. Aristagoras of Miletus, finding himself in a position of difficulty, had lighted up the flames of war in Asia Minor, and brought about a general revolt of the Greeks in those parts against the Persian power --a revolt which spread on from the Greeks to the native Asiatics, and in a short time embraced, not only Ionia and Æolis, but Caria, Caunus, and almost the whole of Cyprus.²⁷⁴ The bulk of the Cyprian cities were Phoenician colonies, and the political connection between these cities and Phoenicia was so close and of such ancient date that the Phoenicians can scarcely have failed to be moved by their example and by their danger. A wave of sympathy might have been expected to sweep across the excitable people, and it would not have been surprising had they rushed headlong into rebellion with the same impetuosity as their Cyprian brethren. Had they done so the danger to Persia would have been very great, and the course of the world's history might perhaps have been differently shaped. The junction of the Phoenician fleet with the navies of Cyprus, Ionia, Caria, and Æolis would have transferred the complete sovereignty of the Eastern Mediterranean to the side of the rebels.²⁷⁵ The contagion of revolt would probably have spread. Lycia and Cilicia, always eager for independence,²⁷⁶ would probably have joined the malcontents; Pamphylia, which lay between them, would have followed their example; the entire seaboard of the region would have been lost; Egypt would, most likely, have seen in the crisis her opportunity, and have avenged the cruelties and insults of Cambyses²⁷⁷ by the massacre of her Persian garrison. Persia's prosperity would have received a sudden check, from which it might never have recovered; Greece would have escaped the ordeal of the invasion of Xerxes; and the character of the struggle between Europe and Asia would have been completely altered.

But the view which the Phoenicians took of their duties, or of their interests, led them to act differently. When the Persians, anxious to recover Cyprus, applied to the Phoenician cities for a naval force, to transport their army from Cilica to the island, and otherwise help them in the war, their request was at once complied with. Ships were sent to the Cilician coast without any delay;²⁷⁸ the Persian land force was conveyed in safety across the strait and landed on the opposite shore; the ships then rounded Cape St. Andreas and anchored in the bay opposite Salamis, where the Ionian fleet was drawn up in defence of the town.²⁷⁹ An engagement followed --the first, so far as we know, between Phoenicians and Greeks --wholly to the advantage of the latter.²⁸⁰ No complaint, however, is made of any lukewarmness, or want of zeal, on the part of the Phoenicians, who seem to have been beaten in fair fight by an enemy whom they had perhaps despised. Their ill fortune did not lead to any very serious result, since the Persian land force defeated the Cyprians, and thus Persia once more obtained possession of the island.

A year or two later the Phoenicians recovered their lost laurels. In B.C. 495 the Persians, having trampled out the flames of revolt in Cyprus, Caria, and Caunus, resolved on a great effort to bring the war to a close by attacking the Ionian Greeks in their own country, and crushing the head and front of the rebellion, which was the great and flourishing city of Miletus. Miletus lay on the southern shore of a deep bay --the Sinus Latmicus --which penetrated the western coast of Asia Minor in about Lat. 37º 30´, but which the deposits of the Mæander have now filled up.²⁸¹ North-west of the town, at the distance of about a mile, was the small island of Ladé, now a mere hillock on the flat alluvial plain. While the Persian land force advanced along the shore, and invested Milestus on the side towards the continent, a combined fleet of six hundred vessels²⁸² proceeded to block the entrance to the bay, and to threaten the doomed city from the sea. This fleet was drawn from four only of the countries subject to Persia --viz. Phoenicia, Cilicia, Cyprus, and Egypt --whereof Phoenicia, we are told, "showed the greatest zeal,"²⁸³ and we may presume furnished by far the larger number of ships. On their arrival in Milesian waters the captains found a strong naval force collected to meet them, which rested upon the island of Ladé, and guarded the approaches to the town. Miletus had summoned to her aid the contingents of her various allies --Chios, Lesbos, Samos, Teos, Priene, Erythræ, Phocæa, Myus --and had succeeded in gathering together a fleet amounting to above three hundred and fifty vessels.²⁸⁴ This time Phoenicia did not despise her foe. Before engaging, every effort was made to sow discord and dissension among the confederates, and induce the Greek captains to withdraw their squadrons, or at any rate to remain neutral in the battle.²⁸⁵ Considerable effect was produced by these machinations; and when at last the attack was made, two of the principal of the Greek allies²⁸⁶ drew off, and sailed homewards, leaving the rest of the confederates to their fate. Yet, notwithstanding this defection, the battle was stoutly contested by the ships which remained, especially those of the Chians,²⁸⁷ and though a very decisive and complete victory was ultimately gained by the Phoenicians and their allies, the cost of the victory was great. Persia regained her naval supremacy in the Eastern Mediterranean; Phoenicia re-established her claim to be considered the great sea power of the time; but she lost a large number of her best vessels and seamen, and she was taught the lesson that, to cope with Greeks, she must have a vast superiority of force upon her side --a superiority of not much less than three to one.

Miletus soon fell after the victory of Ladé, and the Phoenician fleet was then employed for some time in chastising the islanders who had taken part in the revolt, and in reducing various towns upon the European shores of the Hellespont, the Propontis, and the Bosphorus, including Perinthus, Selymbria, and Byzantium.²⁸⁸ Miltiades, the destined hero of Marathon, narrowly escaped capture at the hands of the Phoenicians at this time, as he fled from his government in the Thracian Chersonese to Athens. The vessel which bore him just escaped into the harbour of Imbrus; but his son, Metiochus, who was on board a worse sailer, was less fortunate. The Phoenicians captured him, and, learning who he was, conveyed him to Darius at Susa, where he was well treated and became a naturalised Persian.²⁸⁹

After the Ionian revolt had been completely put down and avenged, the states subject to Persia, and the Phoenicians among them, enjoyed a brief period of repose. But soon the restless spirit which possessed all the earlier Persian monarchs incited Darius to carry his warlike enterprises into "fresh fields and pastures new." From the eastern coast of the Ægean Sea he looked out towards a land possessing every attraction that soil or clime could offer, fertile, rich in minerals, and with many excellent harbours, well watered, abounding in corn and wine and oil, in wooded hillsides, and in productive plains. According to Herodotus,²⁹⁰ he had already explored the strength and weakness of the region by means of a commission of Persian nobles, who had surveyed all the shores of Greece from the decks of Phoenician ships. The result was that he coveted the possession of the land thus made known to him, and came to a fixed resolution that he would add it to his territories.

There were two modes by which Greece might be approached from Asia. Bridges of boats could be thrown across the Bosphorus or the Hellespont, mere salt rivers, scarcely more formidable than the streams of the Euphrates and the Tigris. In this way Europe could be invaded in force, and the army sent across the straits, could pursue its way along the shore till it reached the rich plains of Thessaly, and from Thessaly passed into Bœtia, Attica, and the Peloponnese. Or a fleet, with a land force on board, might proceed from Asia Minor across the Ægean, where the numerous islands, scattered at short intervals, seemed to have been arranged by nature as stepping-stones, whereby the adventurous denizens of either continent might cross easily into the other; and a landing might be suddenly effected near the very heart of Greece without a tenth part of the trouble that must be taken if the other line of route were pursued. In either case the attendance of a fleet would be necessary. If the more circuitous route were pursued, a powerful squadron must attend the march of the army along the shore, to convey its supplies; if the direct route were preferred, a still larger fleet would be necessary for the conveyance, not only of the supplies, but of the army itself. Darius gave a trial to each of the two plans. In the year B.C. 492 he sent a fleet and army under Mardonius by way of the Hellespont and the European coast; but this expedition met with severe disasters, the fleet being shattered by a storm off Mount Athos, and the land force greatly damaged by a night attack on the part of the Thracians.²⁹¹ Two years later he dispatched the famous expedition under Datis and Artaphernes, which took its course through the islands, and landed perhaps 200,000 men on the plain of Marathon,²⁹² but being there defeated by Miltiades, returned hastily to Asia by the sea route. The fleets employed on both these occasions were numerous,²⁹³ and appear to have been collected from several of the Persian maritime states;²⁹⁴ the proportion which the several contingents bore one to another is not stated, but there can be little doubt that the Phoenicians contributed the greater number. We have no details of the conduct of the Phoenicians on either occasion, beyond a casual notice that in the expedition of Datis and Artaphernes one of their vessels plundered the temple of Delium on the Bœotian coast opposite Chalcis, carrying off from it an image of Apollo plated with gold.²⁹⁵ The superstition of Datis deprived them of this valuable booty; but we may safely conclude from the anecdote that, while rendering service to Persia, the keen- witted mariners took care not to neglect their own material interests.

In the third and greatest of the expeditions conducted by Persia against Greece, the Phoenicians are found to have played a very important and prominent part. Even before the expedition commenced, a call was made upon them in connection with it for services of an unusual character. The loss of the fleet of Mardonius off Mount Athos induced Xerxes to determine on cutting a ship-canal through the isthmus which joins Athos to the mainland; and his passion for great and striking achievements caused him to project the construction of a double bridge of boats across the Hellespont. Phoenician technical skill was invoked for the furtherance of both objects. At Athos they worked in conjunction with the maritime states generally, but showed an amount of engineering knowledge far in advance of their fellow- labourers. The others attempted to give perpendicular sides to their portions of the excavation, but found the sides continually fall in, and so (as Herodotus observes) "had double labour."²⁹⁶ The Phoenicians alone knew that the sides must be sloped at an angle, and, calculating the proper slope aright, performed their share of the task without mishap. At the Hellespont the Phoenicians had for co-partners the Egyptians only, and the two nations appear to have displayed an equal ability.²⁹⁷ Cables were passed from shore to shore, made taut by capstans and supported by an almost continuous line of boats; planks were then laid upon the cables, and covered with brushwood, while a thick layer of earth was placed upon the top. A solid causeway was thus formed, which was guarded on either side by bulwarks of such a height that the horses which crossed the bridge could not see over them; and thus the cavalry and the sumpter beasts passed from one continent to the other without a suspicion that they had ever had anything but /terra firma/ under them. The structure served its purpose, but was not found strong enough to defy even for a year the forces of the winds and waves. Before the return of Xerxes, towards the close of B.C. 480, the autumnal gales had broken it up; and the army which accompanied him had to re-cross the strait in a number of separate ships.²⁹⁸

The fleet which Xerxes collected to accompany his land army and take part in his great expedition amounted, it is said, to a total of 1207 vessels.²⁹⁹ Of these the Phoenician triremes were at once the most numerous and the best. While Egypt furnished 200 ships, Cyprus 150, Cilicia, Ionia, and the Hellespontine Greeks 100 each, and the other maritime nations, all together, 257, Phoenicia singly contributed no fewer than 300.³⁰⁰ The superiority of the Phoenician vessels was sufficiently shown, first by the regatta at Abydos, which was won by a Sidonian trireme;³⁰¹ next, by the preference of Xerxes for Phoenician over other vessels;³⁰² and, thirdly, by the position assigned them at Salamis, where care was taken to pit them against the Athenians,³⁰³ who were recognised as superior at sea to all the other Greeks. If the Phoenician prowess and naval skill did not succeed in averting defeat from the Persians, we must ascribe it first to the narrowness of the seas in which they had to engage the enemy; and, secondly, to the still greater prowess and skill of their principal antagonists, the Athenians, the Eginetans, and the Corinthians.

In the naval combats at Artemisium, the Egyptians, according to Herodotus,³⁰⁴ were considered to have borne off the palm on the Persian side; but Diodorus assigns that honour to the Sidonians.³⁰⁵ At Salamis the brunt of the conflict fell on the Phoenician contingent, which began the battle,³⁰⁶ and for some time forced the Athenian squadron to beat a retreat, but was ultimately overpowered and forced to take to flight, after suffering great losses. A large number of the ships were sunk; several were taken by the Greeks; comparatively few escaped from the battle without serious injury.³⁰⁷ Xerxes, however, who from his silver-footed throne on Mount Ægaleos surveyed the scene,³⁰⁸ but, amid the general turmoil and confusion, could ill distinguish the conduct of the several contingents, enraged at the loss of the battle, and regarding the Phoenicians as answerable for the unhappy result, since they formed the nucleus and chief strength of the fleet, laid the whole blame of the failure upon them, and, on some of the captains appearing before him to excuse themselves, had them beheaded upon the spot.³⁰⁹ At the same time he also threatened the other Phoenician commanders with his vengeance, and so alarmed them that, according to Diodorus,³¹⁰ they quitted the fleet and sailed away to Asia.

This harsh and unjust treatment seems to have led to an estrangement between the Persians and the foremost of the naval nations subject to them, which lasted for fifteen years. The Persians naturally distrusted those whom they had injured, and were unwilling to call them in to their aid. The Phoenicians probably brooded over their wrongs, and abstained from volunteering an assistance which they were not asked to furnish. The war between Persia and Greece continued, and was transferred from Europe to Asia, but no Phoenicians are mentioned as taking part in it. The Phoenician ships retired from Samos on the approach of the Greek fleet under Leotychides.³¹¹ No Phoenicians fought at Mycale. None are heard of as engaged at Sestos, or Byzantium, or Eïon, or Doriscus, or even Phaselis. It was not until -- in B.C. 465 --the war passed from the Ægean to the southern coast of Asia Minor, and their dependency, Cyprus, was threatened, that the Phoenicians again appeared upon the scene, and mustered in strength to the support of their Persian suzerain.

The Persian fleet which fought at the Eurymedon is said to have consisted of three hundred and forty vessels, drawn from the three subject nations of the Phoenicians, the Cyprians, and the Cilicians.³¹² It was under the command of Tithraustes, a son of Xerxes. Cimon, who led the fleet of the Athenians and their allies, attacked it with a force of 250 triremes, of which Athens had furnished the greater number. The battle was contested with extreme obstinacy on both sides; but at length the Athenians prevailed, and besides destroying a large number of the enemy's vessels, took as many as a hundred with their crews on board. At the same time a land victory was gained over the Persian troops. The double exploit was regarded as one of the most glorious in the annals of Greece, and was commemorated at Delos by a tablet with the following inscription: --³¹³

Since first the sea Europe from Asia severed, And Mars to rage 'mid humankind began, Never was such a blow as this delivered On land and sea at once by mortal man. These heroes did to death a host of Medes Near Cyprus, and then captured with their crews Five score Phoenician vessels; at the news All Asia groaned, hard hit by such brave deeds.

It is scarcely necessary to follow further in detail the services which Phoenicia rendered to Persia as her submissive and attached ally. For the space of about seventy-five years from the date of the engagement at the Eurymedon (B.C. 465-390), the Phoenicians continued to hold the first place among the Persian naval states, and to render their mistress effective help in all her naval enterprises. They protected Cyprus and Egypt from the Athenian attacks, bore their part in the war with Amyrtæus and Inaros, and more than once inflicted severe blows upon the Athenian navy.³¹⁴ It was his command of a Phoenician fleet amounting to nearly a hundred and fifty triremes which enabled Tissaphernes to play so influential a part in Asia Minor during the later years of the Peloponnesian war. It was the presence of their ships at Cnidus which, in B.C. 394, turned the scale between Athens and Sparta, enabling the Athenians to recover the naval supremacy which they had lost at Ægos-Potami. It was the appearance of a Phoenician fleet in Greek waters³¹⁵ which, in the following year, gave an opportunity to the Athenians to rebuild their "Long Walls," alarmed Sparta for her own safety, and extorted from her fears --in B.C. 387 --the agreement known as "the Peace of Antalcidas." Persia owed to her Phoenician subjects the glory of recovering complete possession of Asia Minor, and of being accepted as a sort of final arbiter in the quarrels of the Grecian states. From B.C. 465 to B.C. 392 Phoenicia served Persia with rare fidelity, never hesitating to lend her aid, and never showing the least inclination to revolt.

It was probably under these circumstances, when Athens owed the recovery of her greatness in no small measure to the Phoenicians, that those relations of friendship and intimacy were established between the two peoples of which we have evidence in several inscriptions. Phoenicians settled in Attica, particularly at Phalerum and the Piræus, and had their own places of worship and interment. Six sepulchral inscriptions have been found, either in Athens itself or at the Piræus,³¹⁶ five of them bilingual,³¹⁷ which mark the interment in Attic soil of persons whose nationality was Phoenician. They had monuments erected over them, generally of some pretension, which must have obtained as much respect as the native tombstones, since otherwise they could not have endured to our day. There is also at the Piræus an altar,³¹⁸ which a Phoenician must have erected and dedicated to a Phoenician god, whom he worshipped on Attic soil apparently without let or hindrance. The god's name is given as "Askum-Adar," a form which does not elsewhere recur, but which is thought to designate the god elsewhere called Sakon, who corresponded to the Grecian Hermes.³¹⁹ Moreover, there is evidence of the Phoenicians having worshipped two other deities in their Attic abodes, one a god who corresponded to the Greek Poseidon and the Roman Neptune, the other the Babylonian and Assyrian Nergal. Among the lost orations of Deniarchus was one delivered by that orator on the occasion of the suit between the people of Phalerum and the Phoenician inhabitants of the place with respect to the priesthood of Poseidon;³²⁰ and a sepulchral monument at the Piræus was erected to Asepta, daughter of Esmun-sillem, of Sidon, by Itten-bel, son of Esmun-sibbeh, high priest of the god Nergal.³²¹ It appears further from the Greek inscription, edited by Böckh,³²² that about this time (B.C. 390-370) a decree was promulgated by the Council {bonle} of Athens whereby the relation of Proxenia was established between Strato (Abd-astartus), king of Sidon, and the Athenian people, and all Sidonians sojourning in Attica were exempted from the tax usually charged upon foreign settlers, from the obligation of the Choregia, and from all other contributions to the state.

The power of Persia began about this time to decline, and the Phoenicians seem to have wavered in their allegiance. In B.C. 406 or 405 Egypt shook off the Persian yoke, and established her independence under a native sovereign.³²³ Soon afterwards, probably in B.C. 392 or 391, Evagoras, a Cypriot Greek, who claimed descent from Teucer, inaugurated a revolution at Salamis in Cyprus, where he slew the Phoenician monarch, Abdemon, who held his throne under Persia, and, himself mounting the throne, proceeded to reduce to subjection the whole island.³²⁴ Vast efforts were made to crush him, but for ten years he defied the power of Persia, and maintained himself as an independent monarch.³²⁵ Even when finally he made his submission, it was under an express stipulation that he should retain his royal dignity, and be simply bound to pay his tribute regularly, and to render such obedience as subject kings commonly paid to their suzerain.³²⁶

In the course of his resistance to Persia, it is beyond question that Evagoras received a certain amount of support from Phoenicia; but the circumstances under which the support was given was doubtful. According to Isocrates,³²⁷ he equipped a large fleet, and attacked the Phoenicians on the mainland with so much vigour as even to take the great city of Tyre by assault; but Diodorus says nothing of the attack, and it is conjectured that the contagion of revolt, which certainly affected, more or less, Cyprus, Cilicia, Caria, and some of the Eastern Mediterranean Arabs,³²⁸ spread also thus early to Phoenicia, and that "the surrender of Tyre was a voluntary defection."³²⁹ In that case, we must view Phoenicia, or at any rate a portion of it, as having detached itself from Persia, about B.C. 390, sixty years before the final break-up of the Empire.

But the disaffection of Phoenicia does not become open and patent until about thirty years later. The decline of Persia had continued. In B.C. 375 an attempt to recover Egypt, for which a vast armament had been collected under Pharnabazus and Iphicrates, completely failed.³³⁰ Nine years afterwards, in B.C. 366, the revolt of the satraps began. First Ariobarzanes, satrap of Phrygia, renounced his allegiance, and defended himself with success against Autophradutes, satrap of Lydia, and Mausolus, native king of Caria under Persia. Then Aspis, who held a part of Cappadocia, revolted and maintained himself by the help of the Pisidians, until he was overpowered by Datames. Next Datames himself, satrap of the rest of Cappadocia, understanding that the mind of the Persian king was poisoned against him, made a treaty with Ariobarzanes, and assumed an independent attitude in his own province. Finally, in B.C. 362, there seems to have been something like a general revolt of the western provinces, in which the satraps of Mysia, Phrygia, and Lydia, Mausolus prince of Caria, and the peoples of Lycia, Pisidia, Pamphylia, Cilicia, and Phoenicia participated.³³¹ Then, if not earlier, Phoenicia openly threw in her lot with the disaffected;³³² refused her tribute like the others, and joined her forces with theirs. Nor, when the rebellion collapsed, did she at once return to her allegiance. When Tachos, native king of Egypt, in B.C. 361, having secured the services of Agesilaus and Chabrias, advanced boldly into Phoenicia, with the object of enlarging his own dominions at the expense of Persia, he was received with favour by the Phoenicians, who were quite willing to form a portion of his empire. But the rebellion of Nectanebo forced Tachos to relinquish his projects,³³³ and the dominion over the Phoenician cities seems to have reverted to Persia without any effort on her part.

In this condition matters remained till about the year B.C. 351, when Sidon, feeling herself aggrieved by the conduct of the Persian authorities at Tripolis,³³⁴ where the general assembly of the Phoenicians held its meetings, boldly raised the standard of revolt against Persia under Tennes, or Tabnit II., and induced the Phoenicians generally to declare themselves independent. Alliance was at once formed with the Egyptian king, Nekht-nebf, or Nectanebo II., who sent a body of 4,000 Greek mercenaries, under Mentor the Rhodian, to the aid of Tennes.³³⁵ Hostilities commenced by the Phoenicians expelling or massacring the Persian garrisons, devastating the royal park or paradise, and burning the stores of forage collected for the use of the Persian cavalry.³³⁶ An attempt made by two satraps --Belesys of Phoenicia and Mazæus of Cilicia --to crush the revolt was completely defeated by Tennes, with the aid of Mentor and his Greeks, who gained a decisive victory over the satraps, and drove the Persians out of Phoenicia.³³⁷ Cyprus then joined the rebels. The nine principal cities made common cause, expelled the Persians, and declared themselves free states, under their respective native kings.³³⁸ Ochus, the Persian king, was at last roused to exert himself. Collecting an army of 300,000 foot and 30,000 horse, supported by 300 triremes and 500 transports or provision-ships,³³⁹ he proceeded to the west in person, determined to inflict condign punishment on the rebels, and to recover to the empire, not only Cyprus and Phoenicia, but also the long-lost Egypt.

Tennes, on his part, had done his best in the way of preparations for defence. He had collected a fleet of above a hundred ships --triremes and quinqueremes,³⁴⁰ the latter now heard of for the first time in Asiatic warfare. He had strengthened the fortifications of Sidon, surrounding the town with a triple ditch of great width and depth, and considerably raising the height of the walls.³⁴¹ He had hired Greek mercenaries to the number of six thousand, raising thus the number in his service to ten thousand in all, had armed and drilled the most active and athletic of the citizens, and had collected vast stores of provisions, armour, and weapons. But the advance of the Persian monarch at the head of so large a force filled Tennes with dismay and despair. Successful resistance was, he thought, impossible; and with a selfishness and a cowardice that must ever make him rank among the most infamous of men, he resolved, if possible, to purchase his own pardon of the King by delivering to his vengeance the entire body of his fellow-countrymen. Accordingly, after handing over to him a hundred of the principal citizens, who were immediately transfixed with javelins, he concerted measures with Mentor for receiving the Persians within the walls. While the arrangements were proceeding, five hundred of the remaining citizens issued forth from one of the gates of the town, with boughs of supplication, as a deputation to implore the mercy of Ochus, but only to suffer the same fate as their fellow-townsmen. The Persians were then received within the walls; but the citizens, understanding what their fate was to be, resolved to anticipate it. They had already burnt their ships, to prevent any desertion. Now they shut themselves up, with their wives and children, in their houses, and applying the torch to their dwellings lighted up a general conflagration. More than forty thousand persons perished in the flames. Ochus sold the ruins at a high price to speculators, who calculated on reimbursing themselves by the treasures which they might dig out from among the ashes. As for Tennes, it is satisfactory to find that a just vengeance overtook him. The treachery which he had employed towards others was shown also to himself. Ochus, who had given him a solemn promise that he would spare his life, no sooner found that there was nothing more to be gained by letting him live, than he relentlessly put him to death.³⁴²

No further resistance was made by the Phoenician cities. Ochus marched on against Egypt and effected its reconquest.³⁴³ The Cyprian revolt was put down by the Prince of Caria, Istricus.³⁴⁴ A calm, prelude to the coming storm, settled down upon Persia; and Phoenicia participated in the general tranquillity. The various communities, exhausted by their recent efforts, and disappointed with the result, laid aside their political aspirations, and fell back upon their commercial instincts. Trade once more flourished. Sidon rose again from her ashes, and recovered a certain amount of prosperity. She held the coast from Leontopolis to Ornithonpolis, and possessed also the dependency of Dor;³⁴⁵ but she had lost Sarepta to Tyre,³⁴⁶ which stepped into the foremost place among the cities on her fall, and retained it until destroyed by Alexander. The other towns which still continued to be of some importance were Aradus, and Gebal or Byblus. These cities, like Tyre and Sidon, retained their native kings,³⁴⁷ who ruled their several states with little interference from the Persians. The line of monarchs may be traced at Sidon for five generations, from the first Esmunazar, who probably reigned about B.C. 460-440, through three generations and four kings, to the second Strato, the contemporary of Alexander.³⁴⁸ The first Esmunazar was succeeded by his son, Tabnit, about B.C. 440. Tabnit married his sister, Am-Ashtoreth, priestess of Ashtoreth, and had issue, two sons, Esmunazar II., whose tomb was found near Sidon by M. de Vogüé in the year 1855, and Strato I. Esmunazar II. is thought to have died about B.C. 400, and to have been succeeded by his brother Strato, the Proxenus of Athens, who reigned till B.C. 361. On Strato's death, his son, the second Tabnit --known to the Greeks as Tennes --mounted the throne, and reigned till B.C. 345, when he was put to death by Ochus. A second Strato, the son of Tennes, then became king, and retained his sovereignty till after the battle of Issus³⁴⁹ (B.C. 333).

6. Phoenicia in the time of Alexander the Great (B.C. 333-323)

Alexander's invasion of Asia --Preparations made to resist it, insufficient --What should have been done --Movements of Memnon in B.C. 333 --His death --Paralysis of the Persian fleet --Attack on Phoenicia after Issus --Submission of all the cities but Tyre --Siege of Tyre --Fall of the city --Cruel treatment of the inhabitants.

The invasion of Asia by Alexander the Great, though it found the Persians unready, was by no means of the nature of a surprise. The design had been openly proclaimed by Philip in the year B.C. 338, when he forced the Grecian States to appoint him generalissimo of their armies, which he promised to lead to the conquest of the East.³⁵⁰ Darius Codomannus had thus ample warning of what he had to expect, and abundant opportunity to make the fullest preparations for defence. During the years B.C. 338 and 337, while Philip was still alive, he did do something towards organising defensive measures, collected troops and ships, and tried to foment discontent and encourage anti- Macedonian movements in Greece.³⁵¹ But the death of Philip by the dagger of Pausanias caused him most imprudently to relax his efforts, to consider the danger past, and to suspend the operations, which he had commenced, until he should see whether Alexander had either the will or the power to carry into effect his father's projects. The events of the years B.C. 336 and 335, the successes of Alexander in Thrace, Illyria, and Bœotia,³⁵² woke him from his fool's paradise to some sense of the realities of the situation. In B.C. 335 the preparations for defence were resumed. Orders were issued to the satraps of Phrygia and Lydia to draw together their troops towards the north-western corner of Asia Minor, and to take the offensive against the Macedonian force which had crossed the straits before Philip's death. The Persian garrisons in this quarter were strongly reinforced with troops of a good quality, drawn from the remoter provinces of the empire, as from Persia Proper, Media, Hyrcania, and Bactria. Notice was given to the Phoenicians to prepare a considerable fleet, and hold it in readiness for active service. Above all, Memnon the Rhodian was given a command on the Asiatic seaboard, and entrusted with a body of five thousand Greek mercenaries, which he was empowered to use at his discretion.³⁵³

But these steps, though in the right direction, were quite inadequate under the circumstances. Everything that was possible should have been done to prevent Alexander from crossing to Asia in force. The fleet should not only have been commanded to hold itself in readiness, but should have been brought up. Four hundred or five hundred vessels,³⁵⁴ from Phoenicia, Cyprus, Egypt, Lycia, and Cilicia, should have been moved into the northern Egean and the Propontis, and have kept watch on every Grecian port. Alexander was unable to muster for the transport of his army across the Straits a larger number than 160 triremes.³⁵⁵ Persia should have met them with a fleet three times as large. Had Memnon been given from the first a free hand at sea, instead of satrapial power on land, it is quite conceivable that the invasion of Asia by Alexander might have proved as abortive an enterprise as the contemplated invasion of England by Napoleon.

As it was, the fleet of Persia, composed mainly of Phoenician vessels, did not appear in the northern Egean waters until some weeks after Alexander had transported his grand army into Asia, and fought at the Granicus, so that when it arrived it was of comparatively little service. Too late even to save Miletus, it had to be a tame spectator of the siege and capture of that important town.³⁵⁶ It was then withdrawn to Halicarnassus, where its presence greatly helped the defence, but not to the extent of wholly baffling the besiegers. Halicarnassus fell, like Miletus, after a while, being entered from the land side; but the fleet saved the troops, the stores, and the inhabitants.³⁵⁷

During the early part of the ensuing year, B.C. 333, while Alexander was engaged in conquering the interior of Asia Minor, the Persian fleet under Memnon at last took the aggressive, and, advancing northwards, employed itself in establishing Persian influence over the whole of the Egean, and especially in reducing the important islands of Chios and Lesbos.³⁵⁸ Memnon was now in full command. Fortune smiled on him; and it seemed more than probable that the war would be, at least partially, transferred into Greece, where the Spartans only waited for Memnon's appearance to commence an anti-Macedonian movement. The presence of a powerful fleet in Greek waters, and Memnon's almost unlimited command of Persian gold, might in a short time have raised such a flame in Greece as to necessitate Alexander's return in order to extinguish it.³⁵⁹ The invasion of Asia might have been arrested in mid course; Alexander might have proved as powerless as Agesilaus to effect any great change in the relations of the two continents; but, at the critical moment, the sudden and unexpected death of the Rhodian chief cast all these hopes to the ground,³⁶⁰ and deprived Persia of her last chance of baffling the invader.

Thus, first by mismanagement and then by an unhappy accident, the Phoenicians were precluded from rendering Persia any effective service in the time of her great necessity. Wiser than Napoleon, Alexander would not contest the sovereignty of the seas with the great naval power of the day, and he even, when he once felt himself strongly lodged in Asia, disbanded his naval force,³⁶¹ that so it might be impossible for disaster at sea to tarnish his prestige. He was convinced that Asia could be won by the land force which he had been permitted to disembark on its shores, and probably anticipated the transfer of naval supremacy which almost immediately followed on the victory of Issus. The complete defeat of the great army of Codomannus, and its retirement on the Euphrates,³⁶² left the entire seaboard of Phoenicia and Phoenicia open to him. He resolved at once to take advantage of the opportunity, and to detach from Persia the three countries of Phoenicia, Egypt, and Cyprus. If he could transfer to himself the navies of these powers, his maritime supremacy would be incontestable. He would render his communications with Macedonia absolutely secure. He would have nothing to fear from revolt or disturbance at home, however deeply he might plunge into the Asiatic continent. If the worst happened to him in Asia, he would have assured himself a safe return.

Accordingly, no sooner was the retreat of Darius upon the line of the Euphrates, and his abandonment of Phoenicia, ascertained, than Alexander, after despatching a detachment of his army to Damascus, marched in person into Phoenicia.³⁶³ The Phoenicians were placed between two dangers. On the one hand, Alexander might ravage their territory, capture and pillage their cities, massacre or sell for slaves the greater portion of their citizens, and destroy their very existence as a people; on the other hand, Darius held as hostages for their fidelity the crews and captains of their triremes, which formed a portion of his fleet, and had on board a large number of their chief men, and even some of their kings.³⁶⁴ It was impossible, however, to temporise; a choice had necessarily to be made; and when Alexander entered Phoenicia, the cities, in almost every case, decided on submitting to him. First Strato, the son of Ger-astartus, king of Aradus, who was serving on board the Phoenician contingent to the Persian fleet, went out to meet Alexander, and surrendered into his hands the four cities of Aradus, Marathus, Sigon, and Mariamme.³⁶⁵ Then Byblus, whose king was also absent with the fleet, opened its gates to the Macedonians.³⁶⁶ Next Sidon, mindful of her recent wrongs, sent envoys to invite Alexander's approach, and joyfully embraced his cause.³⁶⁷ Even Tyre nominally made submission, and declared itself ready to obey Alexander's commands;³⁶⁸ and the transfer of Phoenicia to the side of Alexander might have been made without bloodshed, had the Macedonian monarch been content to leave their island city, which was their true capital, and their pride and glory, unmolested. But Alexander could not brook anything that in any degree savoured of opposition to his will. When therefore, on his expressing a wish to sacrifice to Melkarth in their island town, the Tyrians declined to receive him within the walls, and suggested that his pious design might be sufficiently accomplished by his making his intended offering in Palæ-Tyrus, where there was a temple of the same god, which was older (they said) and more venerable than their own, Alexander's pride was touched, and he became violently enraged.³⁶⁹ Dismissing the envoys with angry threats, he at once began preparations for an attack upon the town.

The Tyrians have been accused of extreme rashness and folly in not making an unqualified submission to the demands preferred by Alexander,³⁷⁰ 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.³⁷¹ 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.³⁷² 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.³⁷³ 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.³⁷⁴ 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.³⁷⁵ 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.³⁷⁶ 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.³⁷⁷

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 Eastern Mediterranean shore. The width of the embankment he fixed at two plethra, or nearly seventy yards.³⁷⁸ 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,³⁷⁹ 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,³⁸⁰ 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.³⁸¹ 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,³⁸² 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.³⁸³ 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,³⁸⁴ 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."³⁸⁵ 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.³⁸⁶

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,³⁸⁷ 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.³⁸⁸ 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.³⁸⁹ 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.³⁹⁰ 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.³⁹¹ 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,³⁹² 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,³⁹³ 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.³⁹⁴ For himself, he landed upon the mole, and pitching his tent near the south-western corner, there established himself.³⁹⁵

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.³⁹⁶ 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;³⁹⁷ 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.³⁹⁸ 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.³⁹⁹ 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.⁴⁰⁰

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.⁴⁰¹ 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 Curium⁴⁰² --were at once run down and sunk.⁴⁰³ 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,⁴⁰⁴ 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.⁴⁰⁵

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.⁴⁰⁶ 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;⁴⁰⁷ 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.⁴⁰⁸ 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.⁴⁰⁹ Further, they made ready masses of red-hot metal, and hurled them against the towers and the scaling- parties.⁴¹⁰ 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.⁴¹¹ With scythes they cut the ropes and thongs by means of which the rams were worked;⁴¹² 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.⁴¹³ 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.⁴¹⁴

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.⁴¹⁵ 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.⁴¹⁶ He then gave orders for a general assault.⁴¹⁷ 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.⁴¹⁸ Two vessels were selected for the purpose. On one, which was that of Cœnus, 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.⁴¹⁹ 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,⁴²⁰ 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.⁴²¹

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.⁴²² 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.⁴²³ 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;⁴²⁴ two thousand more, who had been made prisoners, were barbarously crucified by command of Alexander round the walls of the city.⁴²⁵ 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,⁴²⁶ 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.⁴²⁷ 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,⁴²⁸ he placed as ruler a member of a decayed branch of the royal family, a certain Abd-elonim, whom the Greeks called Ballonymos.⁴²⁹

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.⁴³⁰ 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,⁴³¹ 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.⁴³² 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.⁴³³ Seafaring men from Phoenicia and Phoenicia 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.⁴³⁴ 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 Phoenicia, to Laemedon, and the two formed together a separate satrapy.⁴³⁵ 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.⁴³⁶ Six years later (B.C. 314), attacked in his turn by Antigonus, Ptolemy was forced to relinquish his conquests,⁴³⁷ 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 phœnix, risen again from its ruins, and through the recuperative energy of commerce had attained almost to its previous wealth and prosperity.⁴³⁸ 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.⁴³⁹ 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.⁴⁴⁰ 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.⁴⁴¹ 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 Philopater⁴⁴² tempted Antiochus III. to assume the aggressive, and to disturb the peace which had now for some time subsisted between Phoenicia and Egypt, the Lagidæ and the Seleucidæ. In B.C. 219 he drove the Egyptians out of Seleucia, the port of Antioch,⁴⁴³ and being joined by Theodotus, the Egyptian governor of the CœleEastern Mediterranean province, invaded that country and Phoenicia, took possession of Tyre and Accho, which was now called Ptolemaïs, and threatened Egypt with subjugation.⁴⁴⁴ 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,⁴⁴⁵ and the surrender of Sidon, Phoenicia passed, with Cœlesyria, 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;⁴⁴⁶ 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 antiquity⁴⁴⁷ down to the time of Alexander, the main, if not the sole, dispenser of Egyptian products to Phoenicia, 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."⁴⁴⁸ 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.⁴⁴⁹ 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 Eastern Mediterranean kings were often present in person, and took part in the festivities.⁴⁵⁰ They seem also to have visited the principal cities at other times, and to have held their court in them for many days together.⁴⁵¹ 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.⁴⁵² Both Aradus and Tyre were allowed the privilege of being asylums,⁴⁵³ 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.⁴⁵⁴ 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 Eastern Mediterranean 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.⁴⁵⁵

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.⁴⁵⁶ 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,⁴⁵⁷ 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 Eastern Mediterraneans, took silver and gold very much, with servants, and came into the Eastern Mediterranean camp to buy the children of Israel for money."⁴⁵⁸ The result was a well- deserved disappointment. The Eastern Mediterranean 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.⁴⁵⁹

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;⁴⁶⁰ 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 Phoenicia generally, the taxes of each city were let out year by year to some of the wealthiest men of the place,⁴⁶¹ 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,⁴⁶² 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.⁴⁶³

8. Phoenicia under the Romans (B.C. 65-A.D. 650)

Phoenicia 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.⁴⁶⁴ 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 Phoenicia, 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.⁴⁶⁵

The province, which retained the name of Phoenicia, and was placed under a proconsul,⁴⁶⁶ 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."⁴⁶⁷ 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 Cœlesyria, as far as the river Eleutherus, especially exempted from her control, despite her earnest entreaties, the cities of Tyre and Sidon.⁴⁶⁸ 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.⁴⁶⁹

So far the Phoenicians would seem to have gained rather than lost by exchanging the dominion of Phoenicia 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,⁴⁷⁰ and made the navigation of the Levant and Ægean as dangerous as it had been in the days anterior to Minos.⁴⁷¹ 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 strength⁴⁷² 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 Eastern Mediterranean presidency.⁴⁷³ 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.⁴⁷⁴ 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 Jerusalem⁴⁷⁵ 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. Phoenicia was reoccupied, and the Parthians driven across the Euphrates, never again to pass it.⁴⁷⁶

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,⁴⁷⁷ 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;⁴⁷⁸ while Hadrian allowed Tyre to call herself a "metropolis."⁴⁷⁹

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."⁴⁸⁰ 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.⁴⁸¹ 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 Phoenicia⁴⁸² 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.⁴⁸³ 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 Eastern Mediterranean 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,⁴⁸⁴ 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,⁴⁸⁵ 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,⁴⁸⁶ 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."⁴⁸⁷ 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.⁴⁸⁸

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,⁴⁸⁹ perhaps to some extent criticised.⁴⁹⁰ 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.⁴⁹¹ 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.⁴⁹² 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.⁴⁹³ 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.⁴⁹⁴ 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.⁴⁹⁵ 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.⁴⁹⁶ 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 Gibbon⁴⁹⁷ 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.⁴⁹⁸ Pleaders were forced to study either at Berytus, or at Rome, or at Constantinople,⁴⁹⁹ 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.

Tyrian, Sidonian, and Berytian learned men and authors of the time were many: Antipater, Apollonius, Boëthus, Diodotus, Philo, Hermippus, Marinus, Paulus, Maximus, Porphyrius. 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, especially since Aramaic had replaced the original language. The students at Berytus between A.D. 250 and 550 were probably, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, Greeks or Romans. The old language ceased to be spoken, and though for some time retained upon the coins together with a Greek legend,⁵⁰⁰ 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.⁵⁰¹ However, in the Phoenician Punic colonies, espeically around Carthage, the language survived till the 5th century and was spoken by people in the rural areas. Saint Augustine knew the language and was well acquanted with Punic literary work and indicated "... there was a great deal of virtue and wisdom in the Punic books". In fact, a pagan grammarian named Maximus once wrote to him a hostile letter in which he mocked at the Punic names of some Christian martyrs, and in his reply Augustine rebukes him for having thrown ridicule at the Punic language which he describes as "our own tongue".

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. Mela⁵⁰² speaks of Sidon in the second century after Christ as "still opulent." Ulpian,⁵⁰³ 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."⁵⁰⁴ St. Jerome, towards the end of the fourth century, speaks of Tyre as "the noblest and most beautiful of all the cities of Phoenicia,"⁵⁰⁵ and as "an emporium for the commerce of almost the whole world."⁵⁰⁶ During the period of the Crusades, "Tyre retained its ancient pre-eminence among the cities of the Eastern Mediterranean 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."⁵⁰⁷

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.⁵⁰⁸ 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?

1. Gen. x. 15-18.

2. "Canaanite" is used in a much wider sence, including all the Eastern Mediterranean nations between the coast line and the desert.

3. Mark vii. 26.

4. Ezra iii. 7.

5. 1 Kings v. 18 (marginal rendering).

6. Ezek. xxvii. 11.

7. Gen. x. 17, 18.

8. Judg. i. 31.

9. Brugsch, "Hist. of Egypt", i. 222, et seq.

10. See "Records of the Past", ii. 110, 111.

11. Josh. xi. 8; xix. 28.

12. Judg. xviii. 7, 8.

13. Ibid. i. 31.

14. Ramantha (Laodicea) in later times claimed the rank of "Metropolis," which implied a supremacy over other cities; but the real chief power of the north was Aradus.

15. Hom. "Il." xxiii. 743.

16. Ibid. 743-748.

17. Hom. "Od." iv. 613-619.

18. Ibid. xv. 460 (Worsley's translation).

19. Hom. "Il." vi. 290-295 (Sotheby's translation).

20. Scylax, "Periplus", § 104.

21. Cl. Julius, quoted by Stephen of Byzantium, ad voc. {DOROS}.

22. Justin, "Hist. Philipp." xviii. 3.

23. Strab. xvi. ii. § 13.

24. Appian, "De Rebus Punicus", § 1, &c.

25. Gesenius, "Mon. Phœn." p. 267.

26. The Sidonian vessel which carries off Eumæus quits the Sicilian haven after sunset, and continues its voyage night and day without stopping --{'Exemar men onos pleomen nuktas te kai e mar} (Hom. "Od." xv. 471-476).

27. Strabo, xvi. 2, § 24.

28. Ibid.

29. Manilius, i. 304-309.

30. Herod. i. 1.

31. See Hom. "Odyss." xv. 455.

32. Herod. l.s.c.

33. Hom. "Odyss." xv. 403-484.

34. Strabo, xvi. 2, § 14.

35. We find hereditary monarchy among the Hittites ("Records of the Past", iv. 28), at Tyre (Menand. ap. Joseph. "Contr. Ap." i. 18), in Moab ("Records", xi. 167), in Judah and Israel, in Syria (2 Kings, xiii. 24), in Ammon (2 Sam. x. 1), &c.

36. 1 Sam. viii. 20.

37. When kings are priests, it is noted as exceptional. (See Menand. l.s.c.; "Inscription of Tabnit", line 1.)

38. Judg. x. 12.

39. Kenrick, "Phoenicia", p. 343.

40. Josh. xix. 29.

41. "Records of the Past", ii. 111.

42. Justin, "Hist. Phil." xviii. 3.

43. Claudian, "Bell. Gild." l. 120.

44. Solinus, "Polyhist." § 29; Plin. "H. N." v. 76.

45. Herod. i. 1 ({nautiliai makrai}).

46. Maspero, "Histoire Ancienne des Peuples de l'Orient", p. 321.

47. See the fragments of Philo Byblius, passim.

48. Euseb. "Præp. Ev". x. 9, § 12.

49. Tatian, "Adv. Græc." § 58.

50. Cinyras and Belus are both connected with Cyprus as kings. The Assyrians found kings there in all the cities (G. Smith, "Eponym Canon." p. 139). So the Persians (Herod. v. 104-110).

51. Dius, Fr. 2; Menand. Fr. 1.

52. Justin (xviii. 3) is scarcely an exception.

53. See the fragments of Dius and Menander above cited.

54. 1 Chr. xiv. 1.

55. 2 Sam. vii. 2.

56. 1 Chr. xxii. 4.

57. 1 Kings v. 1.

58. Joseph, "Ant. Jud." viii. 2, § 6; 1 Kings, l.s.c.

59. Ibid. viii. 2, § 8.

60. See Joseph. "Ant. Jud." viii. 2, § 7, and compare the letters with their Hebrew counterparts in 1 Kings v. 3-6 and 7-9.

61. 1 Kings v. 10-12.

62. Ezek. xxvii. 17; Acts xii. 20.

63. Menander, Fr. 1.

64. 1 Kings v. 15, 18; 2 Chr. ii. 18.

65. 1 Kings v. 17, 18.

66. Ibid. vi. 18, 29.

67. Ibid. verses 23-28.

68. Ibid. verse 35.

69. 2 Chron. iii. 14.

70. Ibid. ii. 14.

71. 1 Kings vii. 13.

72. 1 Kings vii. 14; 2 Chron. ii. 14.

73. 1 Kings vii. 46.

74. Menander, Fr. 1; Dius, Fr. 2; Philostrat. "Vit. Apoll." v. 5; Sil. Ital. "Bell. Pun." iii. 14, 22, 30.

75. 1 Kings vii. 15-22.

76. Ibid. verses 27-37.

77. Ibid. vi. 38.

78. Ibid. vii. 1. Compare ix. 10.

79. Stanley, "Lectures on the Jewish Church", ii. 165-167.

80. See the Fragment of Menander above quoted, where Hiram is said to have been fifty-three years old at his decease, and to have reigned thirty-four years.

81. Strabo, xvi. 2, § 23.

82. Menander, l.s.c.

83. So M. Renan, "Mission de Phénicie", p. 369.

84. Herod. ii. 44.

85. Arrian, "Exped. Alex." ii. 16, 24.

86. So M. Renan, after careful examination ("Mission", l.s.c.). The earlier opinion placed the smaller island, with its Temple of Baal, towards the north (Kenrick, "Phoenicia", p. 347).

87. Menander, l.s.c.

88. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 23, sub fin.

89. Josh. xix. 27.

90. See Robinson, "Later Researches", pp. 87, 88.

91. 1 Kings ix. 10-13.

92. Justin, "Dial. c. Tryph." § 34.

93. Menand. ap. Clem. Alex. "Strom." i. 386.

94. 1 Kings xi. 1.

95. Ibid. ix. 27.

96. See 1 Kings x. 22. The distinctness of this navy from the one which brought gold from Ophir has been maintained by Dean Stanley ("Lectures on the Jewish Church", ii. 156) and the Rev. J. Hammond ("Pulpit Commentary", Comment on 1 Kings, p. 213), as well as by the present writer ("Speaker's Commentary", ii. pp. 545, 546).

97. Mela. iii. 1; Plin. "H. N." iv. 22, § 115; Catull. xx. 30, &c.

98. See Plin. "H. N." iii. 3; xxxiii. 6; Polyb. x. 10; Strab. iii. 2, § 3 and 10.

99. Herod. iv. 191; Plin. "H. N." viii. 11.

100. Hanno, "Periplus", p. 6.

101. Ibid. pp. 13, 14.

102. 1 Kings ix. 26.

103. 1 Kings x. 11.

104. The case is excellently stated in Mr. Twistleton's article on OPHIR in Dr. Smith's "Dictionry of the Bible", vol. ii.

105. As "almug" or "algum" which is "the Hebraised form of a Deccan word for sandalwood" (Stanley, "Lectures", ii. 157).

106. 1 Kings ix. 28.

107. "Contr. Ap." i. 18.

108. Kenrick argues in favour of {Kitioi} ("Phoenicia", p. 357).

109. See "Encycl. Britann." ad voc. PHOENICIA, xviii. 807.

110. Menander, Fr. 2.

111. Ibid.

112. 1 Kings xvi. 31.

113. The Assyrians probably found their way into Phoenicia through the gap in the mountain line between Bargylus and Lebanon. Botrys occupied a strong position between this gap and the southern Phoenician cities, Gebal, Sidon, and Tyre.

114. Menander, l.s.c. Aüza, which at a later date became Auzen, is mentioned by Tacitus ("Ann." iv. 25) and Ptolemy ("Geograph. iv. 2).

115. The Greek "lamda", {L}, readily passes into "delta" {D}. Baal- azar is found as a Phoenician name in an inscription ("Corp. Ins. Semit." i. 335, no. 256).

116. See Gesen. "Mon. Phœn." p. 410. "Mattan", "a gift," was the name borne by Athaliah's high priest of Baal (2 Kings xi. 18). It is found as an element in several Phoenician names, as Mattan-elim ("Corp. Ins. Semit." i. 298, no. 194); Mattan-Baal (ibid. p. 309, no. 212), &c.

117. See Justin, "Hist. Phil." xviii. 5.

118. Menander, Fr. 1.

119. Kenrick, "Phoenicia", pp. 363-367.

120. "Contr. Ap." i. 18.

121. "Ancient Monarchies", ii. 84-89.

122. "Histoire Ancienne", pp. 347, 348.

123. "Ancient Monarchies", ii. 90-99.

124. "Ancient Monarchies", ii. 102-106; "Eponym Canon", pp. 108-114.

125. "Eponym Canon", p. 112, l. 45.

126. Ibid. p. 108, l. 93.

127. Ibid. p. 115, l. 14.

128. Ibid. p. 120, ll. 33-35.

129. When Assyria became mistress of the Upper Syria, the Orontes valley, and the kingdom of Israel, she could have strangled the Phoenician land commerce at a moment's notice.

130. Is. xxiii. 2-8.

131. "Eponym Canon", p. 64.

132. "Eponym Canon", pp. 117-120.

133. Ibid. p. 123, ll. 1-5.

134. Ibid. p. 120, l. 28.

135. In B.C. 720. (See "Eponym Canon", p. 126, ll. 33-35.)

136. Ezek. xxviii. 14.

137. Menander ap. Joseph. "Ant. Jud." ix. 14, § 2; "Eponym Canon", p. 131.

138. "Eponym Canon", p. 132.

139. Menander, l.s.c.

140. Joseph, "Ant. Jud." l.s.c. {'Epelthe polemon ten te Surian pasan kai Phoiniken}.

141. Ibid.

142. A slab of Sennacherib's represents the Assyrian army entering a city, probably Phoenician, at one end, while the inhabitants embark on board their ships at the other (Layard, "Monuments of Nineveh", 1st series, pl. 71; "Nin. and its Remains", ii. 384).

143. Menander, l.s.c.

144. Compare Perrot et Chipiez, "Hist. de l'Art", iii. 357, and Lortet, "La Syrie d'aujourd'hui", p. 128.

145. Menander, ut supra.

146. This folows from his taking refuge there when attacked by Sennacherib ("Eponym Canon", p. 136).

147. Since Sennacherib calls him persistently "king of Sidon" (ibid. p. 131, l. 2; p. 135, ll. 13, 17), not king of Tyre.

148. It was the same army which lost 185,000 men by miracle in one night (2 Kings xix. 35).

149. 2 Kings xix. 23.

150. "Eponym Canon", p. 134, l. 11.

151. "Records of the Past", i. 35.

152. "Eponym Canon", p. 132.

153. Ibid.

154. "Eponym Canon", p. 132, l. 14; p. 136, ll. 14, 19. "Tubaal" is probably for Tob-baal, "Baal is good," like "Tabrimon" for Tob- Rimmon, "Rimmon is good" (1 Kings xv. 18), and "Tabeal" for Tob- El, "God is good" (Is. vii. 6).

155. "Eponym Canon", p. 132, ll. 15, 16.

156. Ibid. ll. 19, 20.

157. From the fact that Abd-Milkut is king of Sidon at the accession of Esarhaddon ("Records of the Past", iii. 111).

158. Abd-Melkarth is one of the commonest of Phoenician names. It occurs, either fully, or in the contracted form of Bod-Melkarth, scores of times in the inscriptions of Carthage. The meaning is "servant of Melkarth."

159. "Records of the Past", iii. 112.

160. "Ancient Monarchies", ii. 186.

161. "Rec. of the Past", iii. 111, 112.

162. "Eponym Canon" pp. 139, 140.

163. Ibid. p. 140, Extract xxxviii. ll. 1-3.

164. "Eponym Canon", p. 140, Ext. xxxviii. ll. 4-9.

165. Ibid. p. 141, Ext. xl.

166. Ibid. p. 142, ll. 12, 13.

167. "Eponym Canon", p. 142, l. 14.

168. See "Ancient Monarchies" ii. 193.

169. Ibid. p. 195.

170. "Eponym Canon", p. 143, Extr. xli. l. 3.

171. "Eponym Canon", pp. 143, 144. Six names are lost between the eleventh line and the eighteenth. They may be supplied from the broken cylinder of Esarhaddon ("Records of the Past", iii. 107, 108.)

172. "Eponym Canon", pp. 144, 145, ll. 84-98.

173. Ibid. p. 139, l. 17.

174. "Records of the Past", vol. i. p. 100.

175. "Records of the Past", i. 66; ix. 41.

176. Ibid. iii. 67, ll. 116, 117.

177. Ibid. i. 67, 68.

178. See Judg. xix. 29; "Eponym Canon", p. 132, l. 9.

179. "Eponym Canon", pp. 149, 149.

180. "Eponym Canon", p. 70.

181. Herod. i. 103. B.C. 633 was, according to Herodotus, the year of the accession of Cyaxares. His attack on Nineveh seems to have followed shortly after.

182. Herod. l.s.c. and iv. 1; Ezek. xxxviii. 2-16; Strabo, xi. 8, § 4; Diod. Sic. ii. 34, § 2-5.

183. "Ancient Monarchies", ii. 221.

184. Stanley, "Lectures on the Jewish Church", ii. 432, 433.

185. Herod. i. 105; Strabo, i. 3, 16; Justin, ii. 3.

186. Herod. l.s.c.; Hippocrat. "De Aëre, Aqua, et Locis", vi. § 108.

187. Herod. i. 73.

188. Strabo, xi. 767; Arrian, "Exp. Alex." iii. 8, § 4.

189. Polyb. v. 70, § 4.

190. "Ancient Monarchies", ii. 228, note.

191. "Ancient Monarchies", ii. 232.

192. Herod. ii. 157; and compare the author's "History of Ancient Egypt", ii. 467, note 6.

193. Ezek. xxvii. 8.

194. Ibid. verse 11.

195. Ibid. verse 9.

196. Ibid. xxviii. 2-5.

197. Ezek. xxvii. 3-6, and 25.

198. See the author's "History of Ancient Egypt", ii. 472, note 1.

199. Herod. ii. 159; 2 Kings xxiii. 29; 2 Chron. xxxv. 20-24.

200. Herod. ii. 157.

201. See Jer. xlvii. 1. Gaza, however, may not have been taken till the campaign of B.C. 608.

202. Herod. i. 105 raises the suspicion that Askelon, which was nearer Egypt than Ashdod, may have belonged to Psamatik I.

203. Ibid. ii. 159.

204. 2 Kings xxiii. 19; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 6.

205. "History of Ancient Egypt", ii. 228.

206. Judg. iv. 15; v. 19.

207. 2 Chron. xxxv. 21.

208. See Jer. xlvi. 2.

209. Berosus, Fr. 1; 2 Kings xxiv. 7.

210. Herod. iv. 42.

211. Ibid. ii. 112.

212. Berosus, l.s.c.

213. Habakkuk, i. 6-10.

214. Jer. xlvi. 3, 4.

215. Ibid. verse 5.

216. Ibid. verse 6.

217. Jer. xlvi. 10.

218. Ibid. verse 16.

219. Ibid. verse 21.

220. Stanley, "Lectures on the Jewish Church", ii. 455.

221. Ibid.

222. Berosus, l.s.c. The extreme haste of the return is indicated by the fact, which is noted, that Nebuchadnezzer himself, with a few light troops, took the short cut across the desert, while his army, with its prisoners, pursued the more usual route through the valley of the Orontes, by Aleppo to Carchemish, and then along the course of the Euphrates.

223. See "History of Ancient Egypt", ii. 480.

224. Habak. i. 6.

225. Menander ap. Joseph. "Contr. Ap." i. 21.

226. Ezek. xxvii. 8, 9, 11.

227. So Joseph. l.s.c. Mr. Kenrick disputes the date on account of Ezek. xxvi. 2, which he thinks must refer to the "final" siege and capture of Jerusalem; but the reference may be to the breaking of the power of Judæa, either by Neco in B.C. 608 or by Nebuchadnezzar in B.C. 605.

228. 2 Kings xxiv. 2; 2 Chr. xxxvi. 6.

229. Ezek. xxviii. 21-23.

230. Menander, l.s.c.

231. Ezek. xxvi. 8-12.

232. Isaiah xliii. 14; Æschyl. "Pers." l. 54.

233. As Kenrick ("Phoenicia", p. 390).

234. See especially, ch. xxviii. 2, 12.

235. Ibid. verses 2-10, 17, 18.

236. Ezek. xxvii. 26.

237. Herod. vii. 44, 96, 100, 128.

238. Ibid. ii. 161; vii. 98; Ezra iii. 7.

239. Menander, Fr. 2.

240. Herod. ii. 182.

241. Ibid. i. 201-214; Ctesias, "Ex. Pers." § 6-8.

242. Herod. i. 177; Arrian, "Exp. Alex." iii. 27.

243. Herod. i. 201-214; Ctes. "Ex. Pers." l.s.c.

244. Ezra i. 1-11.

245. Kenrick, "Phoenicia", p. 393.

246. Herod. iii. 19, 34.

247. Ezra iii. 7.

248. Ezra iii. 7.

249. Herod. i. 153.

250. Ibid. ii. 177.

251. See Berosus, ap. Joseph. "Ant. Jud." x. 11, § 1.

252. Hence the sacred writers speak of the Assyrians and Babylonians as "God's "northern" army," "a people from the "north" country." (Jer. i. 15; vi. 22; Ezek. xxvi. 7; Joel ii. 20, &c.)

253. See Herod. iii. 5.

254. Ibid. ii. 159.

255. Ibid. ii. 161.

256. Ibid. ii. 182.

257. Herod. ii. 150, 154; iii. 11.

258. Ibid. iii. 19.

259. Ibid. vii. 98; viii. 67, § 2; Diod. Sic. xvi. 42, § 2; xvii. 47, § 1; Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 13, 15, &c.

260. Herod. iii. 19.

261. Ezek. xxix. 10.

262. Herod. iii. 17.

263. Herod. iii. 19.

264. Ibid.

265. Kenrick, "Phoenicia", p. 394.

266. Diod. Sic. xvi. 41.

267. Kenrick, p. 391, note 3.

268. Herod. iii. 91.

269. Diod. Sic. xvi. 41, § 2.

270. Herod. v. 52.

271. See the author's "Herodotus", iv. 30, note 1.

272. Herod. vii. 28.

273. Ibid. iv. 166.

274. Herod. v. 37-104.

275. Phoenicia could furnish 300 triremes, Cyprus 150, Ionia at this time 283 (Herod. vi. 8), Æolis at least 70 (ibid.), Caria the same number (ib. vii. 93) --total, 873. Against these Darious could only have mustered 200 from Egypt (ib. vii. 89), 100 from Cilicia (ib. 91), 50 from Lycia (ib. 92), and 30 from Pamphylia (ib. 91) -- total, 380.

276. Herod. i. 28, 176; Appian, "Bell. Civ." iv. 80.

277. Herod. iii. 14-16, 27-29, 37, &c.

278. Ibid. v. 108.

279. Ibid.

280. Ibid. v. 112.

281. See the author's "Herodotus", i. 268, 269, 3rd ed.

282. Herod. vi. 9.

283. Ibid. ch. 6.

284. Herod. ch. 8.

285. Ibid. chs. 9-13.

286. The Lesbians and most of the Samians (Herod. v. 14).

287. Ibid. ch. 15.

288. Ibid. chs. 31-33.

289. Herod. v. 41.

290. Ibid. iii. 135-138.

291. Herod. vi. 43-45.

292. See the author's "Herodotus", iii. 494, note 3.

293. The fleet which accomponied Mardonius lost nearly "three hundred" vessels off Mount Athos (Herod. vi. 44), and therefore can scarcely have fallen much short of 500; that of Datis and Artaphernes is reckoned at 600 by Herodotus (vi. 95), at a thousand by Cicero ("Orat. in Verr." ii. 1, § 18), and Valerius Maximus (i. 1).

294. So Herodotus (vi. 95).

295. Herod. vi. 118.

296. Herod. vii. 23.

297. Ibid. vii. 34-36.

298. Ibid. viii. 117.

299. Æschyl. "Pers." l. 343; Herod. vii. 89.

300. Herod. vii. 89-95; Diod. Sic. xi. 3, § 7.

301. Herod. vii. 44.

302. Ibid. vii. 100, 128.

303. Ibid. viii. 85.

304. Ibid. viii. 17.

305. Diod. Sic. xi. 13, § 2: {'Aristeusai Phasi para men tois 'El-lesin 'Athnaious, para de, tois barbarois Sidonious}.

306. Herod. viii. 84; Æschyl. "Pers." ll. 415-7.

307. Herod. viii. 86-90.

308. Ibid. ch. 90.

309. Ibid. ch. 90.

310. Diod. Sic. xi. 19, § 4.

311. Herod. ix. 96.

312. Diod. Sic. xi. 60, § 5, 6.

313. So Diodorus (xi. 62, § 3); but the mention of Cyprus in line 6 renders this somewhat doubtful.

314. Thucyd. i. 110.

315. See "Ancient Monarchies", iii. 501.

316. See the "Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum", i. 139-148.

317. Nos. 115, 116, 117, 119, 120.

318. Ibid. No. 118.

319. "Corp. Ins. Sem." i. 132, 145.

320. Dionys. Halicarn. "De Orat. Antiq." "Dinarch." § 10.

321. "Corp. Ins. Sem." i. 145, No. 119.

322. See the "Corpus Inscriptionum Græcarum", i. 126, No. 87.

323. Nefaheritis or Nefaa-ert. (See the author's "Story of Egypt", pp. 385, 386, and compare "Ancient Monarchies", iii. 481, 482.)

324. Isocrates, "Paneg." and "Evag."; Theopompas, Fr. 111; Diod. Sic. xiv. 98; Ctesias, "Exc. Pers." Fr. 29, § 63.

325. Diod. Sic. xv. 9, § 2. (See Grote's "Hist. of Greece", x. 30, note 3.)

326. Diod. Sic. xv. 9, § 2.

327. Isocrates, "Paneg." § 161; "Evag." §§ 23, 62.

328. See Diod. Sic. xiv. 98; xv. 2; Ephorus Fr.; 134 Isocrates, "Evag." §§ 75, 76.

329. Kenrick, "Phoenicia", p. 405.

330. See "Ancient Monarchies", iii. 504.

331. "Ancient Monarchies", iii. 505, 506.

332. Diod. Sic. xv. 90, § 3.

333. Ibid. xv. 92, § 5.

334. Ibid. xvi. 41, § 1.

335. Diod. Sic. xvi. 42, § 2.

336. Ibid. xvi. 41, § 5.

337. Ibid. xvi. 32, § 2.

338. Ibid. § 5.

339. Ibid. xvi. 40, § 5, ad fin.

340. Ibid. xvi. 44, § 6, ad fin.

341. Diod. Sic. xvi. § 5.

342. Diodorus is our authority for all these facts (xvi. 45, § 1-6).

343. See the author's "Story of Egypt", pp. 396-401.

344. Diod. Sic. xvi. 42, § 6; 46, § 3.

345. Scylax, "Periplus", § 104.

346. Ibid.

347. See Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 13, sub fin.; 15, sub fin.; 30, sub init.

348. See "Encycl. Brit." xviii. 809.

349. Quint. Curt. iv. 4; Justin, xi. 10. Diodorus by mistake makes Strato II. king of Tyre (xvii. 47, § 1).

350. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." i. 1, § 2.

351. See Grote, "History of Greece", xii. 102.

352. Ibid. pp. 29-51.

353. Diod. Sic. xvii. 7.

354. Four hundred were actually brought to the relief of Miletus a few weeks later (Arrian, "Exp. Alex." i. 18, § 5).

355. Ibid. § 4.

356. Diod. Sic. xvii. 22; Arrian, "Exp. Alex." i. 18-20.

357. Diod. Sic. xvii. 23-26; Arrian, "Exp. Alex." i. 20-23.

358. Diod. Sic. xvii. 29, § 2; Arrian., "Exp. Alex." ii. 1, § 1.

359. See the remarks of Mr. Grote ("History of Greece", xii. 142, 143.)

360. Diod. Sic. xvii. 29, § 4.

361. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." i. 20, § 1; Diod. Sic. i. 22, § 5.

362. Arrian, ii. 8-13.

363. Arrian, ii. 13, 87; Diod. Sic. xvii. 40, § 2.

364. As Ger-astartus, king of Aradus (Arrian, l.s.c.); Enylus, king of Byblus (ibid. ii. 20, § 1); and Azemileus, king of Tyre (ibid. ii. 15, ad fin.)

365. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 13, ad fin.

366. Ibid. ii. 15, § 6.

367. Arrian, l.s.c.

368. Ibid. ii. 15, § 7; Q. Curt. iv. 2, § 3.

369. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 16, ad fin.; Q. Curt. iv. 2, § 5; Justin, xi. 10.

370. Diod. Sic. xvii. 40, § 2.

371. See Diod. Sic. xv. 73, § 4; 77, § 4.

372. In point of fact, he only obtained, towards the fleet which he collected against Tyre, twenty-three vessels that were not either Cyprian or Phoenician (Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 20, § 2).

373. Herod. viii. 97.

374. Compare Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 15, § 7, with ii. 24, § 5.

375. Diod. Sic. xvii. 41, § 3.

376. Ibid. § 4.

377. Q. Curt. iv. § 20; Diod. Sic. xvii. 41, § 1, 2.

378. Diod. Sic. xvii. 40, § 5.

379. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 18, § 3.

380. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 18, § 3.

381. Diod. Sic. xvii. 42, § 1; Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 18, § 5.

382. Arrian, ii. 18, sub fin.

383. Ibid. ii. 19, § 1.

384. This seems to be Arrian's meaning, when he says, {ai keraiai periklastheisaiexekhean es to pur osa es exapsin tes phlogus pareskeuasmena en} (ii. 19, § 4).

385. Grote, "History of Greece", xii. 185, 186.

386. Kenrick, "Phoenicia", p. 418.

387. Q. Curt. iv. 3, § 8.

388. Arrian, l.s.c.

389. Arrian, ii. 20, § 1.

390. Ibid. § 2.

391. Arrian, ii. 20; § 3; Q. Curt. iv. 3, § 11.

392. {'Epibibasas tois katastromasi ton upaspiston osoi ikanoi edokoun es to ergon} (Arrian, ii. 20, § 6).

393. The Tyrians had but eighty vessels against Alexander's 224.

394. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 20, ad fin.

395. Ibid. ii. 21, § 8.

396. Q. Curt. iv. 3, § 7-9.

397. Diod. Sic. xvii. 42, § 6; Q. Curt. l.s.c.

398. See Kenrick, "Phoenicia", pp. 421, 422.

399. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 21, § 1.

400. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 21, § 4-7.

401. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 21, § 8.

402. Some editions of Arrian gave {Pasikratous tou Thourieos}, "Pasicrates the Thurian," but the right reading is undoubtedly {tou Kourieos}, "the Curian, or king of Curium." (See the note of Sintenis ad loc.)

403. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 22, § 2.

404. Six triremes and all the quinqueremes (Arrian, ii. 22, § 3).

405. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 22, § 5.

406. Diod. Sic. xvii. 42, § 7.

407. Ibid. xvii. 45, § 4.

408. Diod. Sic. xvii. 45, § 3.

409. Ibid. xvii. 43, § 7, 8.

410. Ibid. xvii. 44, § 4.

411. Ibid. xvii. 44, § 1-3.

412. Ibid. § 4.

413. Ibid. xvii. 45, § 6.

414. Ibid. xvii. 43, § 3.

415. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 22, sub fin.

416. {Kateseise tou teikhous epi mega} (Ibid. ii. 23, § 1).

417. Diod. Sic. xvii. 46, § 1.

418. Arrian, ii. 23, § 2.

419. Ibid. ii. 23, § 5.

420. Not ""the" foremost," as Diodorus says (xvii. 46, § 2).

421. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 23, ad fin.

422. Ibid. ii. 24, § 1.

423. Ibid.

424. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." ii. 24, § 4.

425. Diod. Sic. xvii. 46, § 4.

426. So Arrian (l.s.c.) Diodorus reduces the number to thirteen thousand (xvii. 46, § 4).

427. Diod. Sic. xvii. 46, § 5; Arrian, ii. 24, § 6.

428. See Kenrick, "Phoenicia", p. 428, note 3.

429. See Diod. Sic. xvii. 46, § 6. The name Abd-elonim, "servant of the gods," is common. The Greeks and Romans generally render it by Abdalonymus.

430. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." iii. 6, § 3.

431. Ibid. vi. 1, § 6.

432. Arrian, "Exp. Alex." vi. 22, § 4.

433. Ibid. vii. 19, § 3.

434. Ibid. § 5.

435. Diod. Sic. xviii. 3, § 1.

436. Ibid. 43, § 2.

437. Diod. Sic. xix. 58, § 1.

438. So Kenrick, "Phoenicia", p. 433. Compare Diod. Sic. xviii. 37, § 4.

439. Diod. Sic. xix. 58, § 2-4.

440. Ibid. 61, § 6.

441. Plutarch, "Vit. Demetr." § 32.

442. Diod. Sic. xxx. 17; Polyb. v. 40.

443. Polyb. v. 60.

444. Ibid. v. 62.

445. Polyb. xvi. 18; Joseph. "Ant. Jud." xii. 3, § 3.

446. See Kenrick, "Phoenicia", p. 436.

447. Herod. i. 1. Egypt never sent trading ships into the Mediterranean. All her commerce with Syria, Asia Minor, and Europe was carried on either in Greek or Phoenician bottoms.

448. Kenrick, "Phoenicia", l.s.c.

449. As that of the Red Sea, Arabia, and the East African coast.

450. 2 Macc. iv. 18.

451. Ibid. verses 44-50.

452. Gesenius, "Mon. Phœn." pls. 32-34.

453. Kenrick, "Phoenicia", pp. 437, 438.

454. Livy, xxvii. 30.

455. 2 Macc. iv. 49.

456. 1 Macc. iii. 34-36; 2 Macc. viii. 9; Joseph. "Ant. Jud." xii. 7, § 2,

457. 2 Macc. viii. 11.

458. 1 Macc. iii. 41.

459. 2 Macc. viii. 25; Joseph. "Ant. Jud." xii. 7, § 4.

460. Strab. xvii. 2, § 22.

461. Joseph. "Ant. Jud." xii. 4, § 3.

462. Ibid. § 4.

463. By Theodotus in B.C. 219 (Polyb. v. 61, § 5), by Cleopatra, queen of Syria, about B.C. 85 (Joseph. "Ant. Jud." xiii. 13, § 2), by Tigranes in B.C. 83 (ibid. xiii. 16, § 4), &c.

464. Justin, "Hist. Philipp." xl. 1; Appian, "Syriaca", § 48.

465. Kenrick, "Phoenicia", p. 438.

466. Or, sometimes, under a proprætor.

467. Joseph. "Ant. Jud." xiv. 10, § 2.

468. Ibid. xv. 4, § 1, ad fin.

469. Ibid. xiv. 12, §§ 4, 5.

470. Mommsen, "History of Rome", iv. 113-115, Engl. Tr.; Merivale, "Roman Empire", i. 36.

471. Thucyd. i. 4.

472. See the author's "Sixth Oriental Monarchy", pp. 178-180.

473. Dio Cass. "Hist. Rom." xlviii. 25.

474. Ibid. § 26.

475. Joseph. "Ant. Jud." xiv. 13.

476. Dio. Cass. xlviii. 39-41.

477. Ibid. liv. 7.

478. Ramsay, in Smith's "Dict. of Greek and Rom. Geography", i. 11.

479. Suidas ad voc. {Paulos Turios}.

480. Mark vii. 24-30. Compare Matt. xv. 21-28.

481. Acts xii. 20, 21.

482. Acts xi. 19.

483. Ibid. xxi. 3-7.

484. See Robertson, "History of the Christian Church", i. 195, 196.

485. Ibid. p. 201.

486. Some doubts have been entertained as to whether Porphyry was really a Tyrian, but his own statement ("Vit. Plotini", ii. 107), backed as it is by the testimony of Eunapius and Suidas, should be regarded as settling the question.

487. Mason, in Smith's "Dict. of Greek and Rom. Biography", iii. 502.

488. See the article on PORPHYRIUS in Smith's "Dict. of Greek and Rom. Biography", iii. 498-502.

489. Strab. xvi. 2, § 24.

490. See the lines quoted by Kenrick ("Phoenicia", p. 440, note) from Cramer's "Anecdota Græca" (iv. 19, § 6): -- {Oi tes Stoas bullousin 'Akademian, Purronas outoi, pantas o Stegeirites. 'Alloi de touton Phoinikes te kai Suroi.}

491. Strabo, l.s.c.

492. Ibid. Strabo's words are: {Nuni de pases kai tes alles philosophias euporian polu pleisten labein estin ek touton ton poleon.}

493. Smith's "Dict. of Greek and Rom. Biography", ii. 417.

494. Kenrick, "Phoenicia", p. 440.

495. Suidas, s.v. {Paulos Turios}.

496. Smith's "Dict. of Greek and Rom. Biography", ii. 1000.

497. Smith's Gibbon, ii. 317.

498. Heineccius, "Ant. Rom. Synt." Proëm, § 45.

499. Ibid.

500. See Eckhel, "Doctr. Num. Vet." iii. 366; Mionnet, "Description des Médailles", Supplement.

501. Note that the "Syro-Phoenician woman" who conversed with our Lord is spoken of as also {'Ellenis}, one whose language was Greek (Mark vii. 26).

502. "De situ orbis", i. 12; "Sidon adhuc opulenta."

503. Ulpian, "Digest. Leg. de Cens." tit. 15.

504. "Exp. totius Mundi" in Hudson's "Geographi Minores", iii. 6.

505. Hieronymus, "Comment. ad Ezek." xxxvi. 7.

506. Hieronymus, "Comment. ad Ezek." xxvii. 2.

507. Ezek. xxvi. 14.

508. Euseb. "Vita Constantin. Magni", iii. 58.