which other nations had encumbered themselves, as determinatives, ideographs, and the like; they assigned to each character a single definite articulation, and to each articulation a single definite character. They thus got rid of the immense multiplicity of earlier systems, and invented an alphabet the value of which was so transcendent that it has maintained itself ever since, and among civilised nations has superseded every other, having only received slight modifications. Their alphabet was invented by the Phoenicians for business purposes which required despatch; and it was employed almost wholly for such uses until a comparatively late date. The Phoenicians proper, so long as they remained a nation, scarcely possessed anything that we could call literature." I

The stele of Mesha, king of Moab, commonly called the Moabite Stone (dated, as is supposed, circ. 850 B.C.), records an inscription in Phoenicio-Hebrew characters, and is the earliest example of the alphabet used by the Phoenicians, Hebrews, Moabites, and kindred nations; the pure Phoenician letters being a later form of the above characters.

That there must have been an alphabet extant, with which the Phoenicians were acquainted and which they used, is evident; and that they found it too cumbersome for rapid execution of business, may be accepted. Hence, a quick ear, added to their business instinct, would lead them to the phonetic spelling of words, and where two or three letters had been used to pronounce a given sound, in the formation of words, they substituted one letter to make the same sound. Thus, in shortening and simplifying the alphabet then in use, they, in a certain sense, invented it as now known.

"The Egyptian was never able thoroughly to realize the restricted number of sounds in speech. He was quite unable to grasp that the whole gamut of elementary sounds which his tongue articulated did not out

Article on Phoenicia, Chambers's Encyclopædia, vol. VIII. pp. 135, 136.

number thirty at the most. This brilliant generalization was to be made by the Phoenicians, and their traditional claim to this high honour has never been seriously shaken, in spite of the learned disquisitions of Dr. Hugo Winckler." I

The following quotation bears on this subject: "To Phoenicia and Assyria the Greeks owe two acquisitions well-deserving special mention—the alphabet and the first standard and scale of weight, as well as coined money. Of neither of these acquisitions can we trace the exact date. That the Greek alphabet is derived from the Phoenician the analogy of the two proves beyond dispute, though we know not how or where the inestimable present was handed over, of which no traces are to be found in the Homeric poems. The Latin alphabet, which is nearly identical with the most ancient Doric variety of the Greek, was derived from the same source . . . If we cannot make out at what time the Phoenicians made this valuable communication to the Greeks, much less can we determine when or how they acquired it themselves. . . It has been shown by Boeckh, in his Melrologia (chaps. iv.-vi.), that the Æginætan scale, with its divisions, talent, mna, and obolus, is identical with the Babylonian and Phoenician; and that the word mna, which forms the central word of the scale, is of Chaldean origin."

1 Success Among Nations, pp. 37, 38, Dr. Emil Reich.

2

History of Greece, vol. III. chap. xxi. George Grote.

"2

Mr. H. Grueber, of the British Museum, has kindly informed the Author that the earliest Phoenician coins extant date from 400 B.C., being those of Aradus (Arvad, see p. 57). A large series of coins connected with Tyre and Sidon (many anterior to Alexander the Great) are to be seen in the collection in the British Museum.

NOTE. We have in the text followed the ordinary Bible chronology as arranged by Archbishop Ussher; but in the light of recent explorations the Egyptian dates have been considerably altered. Professor Flinders Petrie, in his History of Egypt (vol. I. p. 251, 4th edition), dates the reign of Rameses from 1275 to 1209 B.C., and this would modify other dependent dates.

CHAPTER III.

THE GENERAL ANALOGIES BETWEEN ANCIENT TYRE AND MODERN ENGLAND.

"Which things are an allegory."-GAL. iv. 24.

Appropriate Scripture: ISA. xxiii. 6-14.

E may now consider :

WE

1. The numerous analogies between ancient Tyre and modern England or Britain;

II. The ancient connection which existed between Tyre and the southern portion of England.

1. There are no less than fourteen analogies between Tyre and England which justify the prophetic and typical application of the former to the latter, namely :

1. Antiquity 2. Monarchy: 3. Maritime situation: 4. Insular position: 5. Ships: 6. Colonies: 7. Commerce: 8. Wealth: 9. Each being "a Mart of nations": 10. Central position as a link between the East and the West II. Their small size as contrasted with their wide influence: 12. Supremacy over the great inland sea, the Mediterranean: 13. Tyre "the crowning city," and London, the capital of England: 14. Friendly relations with Israel.

1. The first analogy between Tyre and England is their antiquity. Tyre is first alluded to in the Book of Joshua, as "the strong city," 1444 B.C. (Josh. xix. 29), and the prophet Isaiah says that the city was "of ancient days" (Isa. xxiii. 7).

In the opinion of historians, the beginning of the çivili

zation of Canaan cannot be placed later than about the year 2500 B.C. Therefore considerable antiquity must be ascribed to the citizens of the "Sidonians, Giblites, Arvadites, Zemorites, and Arkites." The settlement on the side of Sidon was no doubt made before the year

2000 B.C.I

Herodotus states, on the authority of the priests of Melkarth, that Tyre was founded 2,300 years before his time, i.e., about 2750 B.C. Such was their tradition, but it cannot be regarded as an historical fact. The Roman historian, Quintus Curtius, also states that Tyre was a city remarkable for the antiquity of its origin.

Although the attribute of antiquity, of itself, presents no distinctive feature, and is not more applicable to England than to many other nations or kingdoms, nevertheless it belongs peculiarly to England. London, according to tradition, was founded 1108 B.C. by a descendant of Æneas. The Church of England traces her pedigree to the British bishops who lived in the third century of the Christian era, and the English monarchy is one of the most ancient in Europe.

2. The next point of resemblance, between ancient Tyre and modern England, is that of their monarchical form of government. Hiram is the only "king of Tyre" mentioned by name in Holy Scripture (1 Kings v. 1). "The land belonged to the king, who was surrounded by much splendour, but the highly developed, independent activity of the citizens limited his actual power more than in ordinary Oriental realms; it was possible for war or peace to be decided on, at Tyre in the king's absence and in Sidon against his will. . . . The sovereign had a council of elders, who in Sidon were in number one hundred. Of these the most distinguished were the ten first, whom we find at Marathus and Carthage (Diod. ii. 628; Just. xviii. 6, 1), originally, it may be supposed, heads of the most noble houses. The third estate was the people; the free men, however, were much outnumbered by the

I

History of Antiquity, vol. II. Max Duncker.

slaves." I This threefold organization reminds us of the British Constitution of King, Lords and Commons, forming an hereditary monarchy and nobility and a representative government.

That Tyre was a Monarchy, is not a point which, per se, can be taken for granted, for Greece and Rome during the zenith of their glory were republics; and among modern nations the United States of America, the South American Spanish States, and Switzerland are republics. We notice, moreover, that a great and civilized nation like France has oscillated, during the last hundred years, between monarchical, imperial and republican forms of government. The limited power of the kings of Tyre finds its parallel in the limited monarchy of England, which has now existed for many centuries.

The monarchical form of government in England may be traced back to the time of the Anglo-Saxons, when the country was divided by them into distinct provinces; and ruled over by their respective kings; the first to assume the title being Ella, A.D. 490, who reigned in South-Sexe or Sussex. All the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were nominally united into one state, in A.D. 827, under King Egbert; but to Athelstane, who reigned from A.D. 925-940, belongs the glory of having established, a few years before his death, what has ever since been known as "The Kingdom of England"; with the exception of a brief interregnum, when the Commonwealth held sway in England for a period of eleven years. This interregnum finds a remarkable parallel in the history of Tyre; where a revolution broke out in 564 B.C., and a Tyrian republic existed for seven years. 3. Another point of likeness between Tyre and England is their situation.

Tyre was a maritime city. The Scriptures speak of her as "situate at the entry of the sea" (Ezek. xxvii. 3). Hosea, in a prophecy concerning Ephraim, refers to the situation of Tyre in these words:

1 Article on Phoenicia : Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. xvIII. p. 809.