Niebuhr's lectures on Roman history, Vol. 2 (of 3) — John Shaqi
Niebuhr's lectures on Roman history, Vol. 2 (of 3)Niebuhr, Barthold Georg
History
Niebuhr's lectures on Roman history, Vol. 2 (of 3)
Niebuhr, Barthold Georg
Rome -- History
Every body knows that Carthage is a colony of Tyre, founded seventy-two
years before the received date of the building of Rome. This statement
is quite historical. It rests upon those highly important notices in
Josephus’ work against Apion, from Phœnician chronicles which he read
in a Greek version of Menander of Ephesus. They are fully as genuine
as Berosus and Sanchoniathon, and closely tally with the history of
the Jewish kings: fraud on the part of Josephus is not to be thought
of. The Romans knew of the historical books of the Phœnicians: after
the destruction of Carthage, they presented them to the library of
the Numidian kings. If we wish for a true and authentic account of
the earliest history, we should be very thankful to have such dates
as these. The assertion also of Timæus that Rome was built about the
same time as Carthage, is not wide of the mark; that is to say, if we
reckon the Sæcula at a hundred and ten years. Utica (Athika עֲתִיקָא)
is an older colony of Tyre than Carthage: its foundation belongs to the
age in which the power of the Phœnicians was at its height, and they
had settlements in Cyprus, and were establishing themselves in every
quarter. Those of Cythera, Thasos, and elsewhere, are of much later
date; but it is likely that Cadiz (Gades) already existed when Carthage
was built.
Carthage was originally founded under the name of Bozra (in Greek
Βύρσα, whence the legend of the bullock’s hide). By the side of this
Bozra, that is to say, city, there arose, even as Naples did at the
side of Parthenope, a new town, קַרִתָּה חַדְתָּא _Kartha chadtha_, (by
contraction Karchadta, from which the Greeks made out Καρχηδών). The
town, for perhaps two hundred years, increased but slowly; it paid
tribute to the Libyan peoples, and was for a long time in a state of
dependence upon Tyre. Towards this, her mother-city, Carthage was
never wanting in filial piety, not even when its relations to her had
completely changed, which is one of the fine traits in her history.
Of the time when Carthage began to extend its sway, we know nothing:
placed as it was in the midst of barbarous nations, which were not
able to amalgamate with it, it could not have risen into prosperity
as quickly as the Greek colonies on the Asiatic coasts, where races
of men were dwelling between which and the Pelasgian stock there was
affinity, although not in language, yet in that spirit of refined
humanity which distinguished them; as, for instance, the Lycians, and
Carians, who, even before they were hellenized, had already attained to
a considerable degree of civilization, as we see from their monuments
and institutions. The Carthaginians did not betake themselves to
husbandry, and therefore they could not multiply as fast as families
which spread out; the Libyans were hard, oppressive neighbours,
barbarians (_Berbers_ as they are called to this very day) who only
gradually mingled with the Phœnician settlers. It was not until the
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account