G08 niOENICIA. makes them to be colonies of their more celebrated namesakes, in opposition to the testimony of Stralio, and without producing anv counter authority. The isle of Tylus or Tyrus is likewise mentioned by Pliny (vi. 32). The account given by Justin is in harmony with these authorities (xviii. 3). He de- scribes the Tyrians asliavint;- been disturbed in llieir native seats by an earthquake, and as mijiratint; thence, first to wliat he calls tiie "Assyrian lake," and subsequently to the shores of the Mediterranean. A recent writer (Kenrick, Phoenicia, p. 47) takes this Assyrian lake to have been Geniiesaret or the Dead Sea, as there was no other collection of waters in S. Assyria to which the term could be applied. This would have formed a natural resting-place in the journey of the emigrants. It must not, however, be concealed, that the account of these writers has been rejected by several very eminent autiiors, as Bochart, Hengstenberg, Heeren, Niebuhr, and others, and more recently by Jlovers, a writer who has paid great attention to Phoenician history, and who has discussed this question at considerable length. (Z'i'e Fhonizier, vol. ii. pt. i. pp. 23 — 62.) His prin- cipal arguments are, that the Phoenician traditions, wiiich go back to the primitive chaos, represent even the gods, as well as the invention of all the arts of life, as indigenous ; that the Scriptures, whose testimony is preferable, both on account of its antiquity, and because it arose out of the bosom of the people themselves, make no mention of any sucli immigration, though at that time its memory could not have been obliterated had it really occurred, and though it would have served the purpose of the Jews to represent the Canaanites as intruders; and that the name of tiie people, being derived from the character of the laud, as well as the appellations of different tribes, such as the Gibli at Bybhis, the Sidonians at Sidon, &c., mark them as indigenous. But it may be obseiTed, that the Phoenician traditions rest on the equivocal authority of the pretended Sanconiatho, and come to us in so questionable a shape that they may evidently be jnade to serve any purpose. Thus Movers himself quotes a passage from Sanconiatho (vol. ii. pt. i. p. 28), to the effect that the Tyrians invented ship- building, because it directly contradicts the state- ment that they were the descendants of a sea-faring people on the shores of the Persian Gulf ; although he had previously cited the same passage (vol. i. p. 143) in proof of the Euhemcrism of Philo-Sanco- niatho, who, it is there said, attributed the invention of navigation to the Cabiri merely because the Phoe- nician mariners considered themselves as .sailing under the protection of their deities. Can such testimony be compared with that of the " loyal- hearted and truthful Herodotus," as Movers cha- racterises him (vol. i. pt. ii. p. 134), wlio, be it observed, also founds his account on the traditions of the Phoenicians {ws avrol (yovat, vii. 89), and who could have had no possible interest in misrepre- senting them? Nor could the natural vanity of the Phoenicians have found any gratification in mislead- ing him on this point, since the tradition lessened, rather than enhanced, the splendour of their origin. The testimony of the Scriptures on the subject is merely nerjatice ; nor, were it otherwise, could they be taken as a certain guide in ethnological inquiries. They were not written with that view, and we have already adverted to a discrepancy in their treatment of this subject. The question, however, is too long to be fully discussed in this place. We have merely PHOENICIA. •adverted to some of the principal heads, and they who wish to pursue tiie inquiry further are referred to the passage in Mover's woi-k already indicated, and to Jlr. Kenrick's Phoenicia (chap. iii.). IV. History. Our knowledge of Phoenician history is only fragmentary. Its native records, both literary and monumental, have almost utterly perished ; and we are thus reduced to gather from scattered notices in the Old Testament and in the Greek and Roman authors, and sometimes to supply by inference, the annals of a country which stands the second in point of antiquity, which for some thousands of years plaved a considerable part in the world, and to which Europe owes the germs of her civilisation. If we accept the authority of Herodotus, the Phoenicians must have appeared upon the coasts of the Mediterranean at least twenty-seven or twenty- eight centuries before the birth of Christ. In order to ascertain the age of Hercules, respecting which the Egyptian chronology ditlered veiy widely from the Greek, that conscientious historian resolved to inquire for himself, and accordingly sailed to Tyre, where he had heard that there w-as a famous temple of Hercules. It was, therefore, expressly for the purpose of settling a chronological point that he was at the trouble of making this voyage, and it is natural to suppose that he did not adopt the inform- ation which he received from the priests without some examination. From these he learned that the temple had existed 2300 years, and that it was coeval with the foundation of Tyre (ii. 43, 44). Now, as Herodotus flourished about the middle of the fifth century before our aera, it follows that Tyre must have been founded about 2750 years B. c. The high antiquity of this date is undoubtedly startling, and on that account has been rejected by several critics and historians. Yet it does not appear why it should be regarded as altogether improbable. The chronology of the Jews is carried back more than 2000 years b. c. ; yet the Jewish Scriptures uniformly intimate the much higher, and indeed inunemorable, antiquity of the Canaiinites. Ac;ain, if we look at Egypt, this aera would fall under the 14th dynasty of its kings* (2750 — 2631 B.C.), who had had an historical ex- istence, and to whom many conquests are attributed before this period. This dynasty was followed by that of the Hyksos, who were probably Canaanites, and are described by Manetho as skilled in the art of war, and of fortifying camps and cities. (Sync, pp. 113, 114; Schol. in Platun. Tim. vol. vii. p. 288, ed. Tauchn.) If Sidon was older than Tyre, and its mother- city, as it claimed to be, this would add some difficulty to the question, by carrying back the chro- nology to a still higher period. But even this ob- jection cannot be regarded as ftital to the date as- signed to Tyre. Cities at so short a distance might easily have been planted by one another within a very brief space of time from their origin ; and the contest between them in ancient times for priority, not only shows that the question was a very am- biguous one, but also leads to the inference that the diti'erence in their dates could not have been very great. The weight of ancient evidence on either side of the question is pretty nearly balanced. On
- This is the date assigned by Movers ; but by
some authorities it is placed later.
