An Attempt to Explain a Punic Inscription, Lately Discovered in the Island of Malta. In a Letter to the Reverend Thomas Birch, D. D. Secret. R. S. from the Reverend John Swinton, B. D. of Christ-Church, Oxon. F. R. S. and Member of the Etruscan Academy of Cortona in Tuscany

production before you; but it came from the East Indies. There is likewise from the West Indies, in its perfect or winged state, the insect, of which this production is believed to be the nympha. [Vid. Tab. XXIII.] I am with all possible regard, Gentlemen, Your most obedient humble servant, Lincoln's-Inn Fields, Nov. 15, 1763. William Watson. XLV. An Attempt to explain a Punic Inscription, lately discovered in the Island of Malta. In a Letter to the Reverend Thomas Birch, D.D. Secret. R.S. from the Reverend John Swinton, B.D. of Christ-Church, Oxon. F.R.S. and Member of the Etruscan Academy of Cortona in Tuscany. Good Sir, Received some months since from the Honourable Mr. Lyttelton of Christ-Church, son to the Right Honourable the Lord Lyttelton, a copy of a Punic inscription, lately discovered in the island of Malta, sent me from Rome by Sig. Abate Venuti, antiquary to the Pope, and a gentleman of profound erudition. This copy was inclosed in a letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Carlisle, Carlisle, who was so good as to transmit it to me at Oxford. The inscription has been mentioned, but not explained, by M. l'Abbé Barthelemy', in the Journal des Scavans, who has deduced a new Phœnician alphabet from it; though he seems to doubt whether any of the transcripts that had appeared, at least any of those he had seen, agreed perfectly in all particulars with the autograph itself. However, from the known accuracy of Sig. Abate Venuti, I think we may venture to suppose the copy now sent you to be in the main sufficiently exact. I shall therefore, at the request of several friends, submit to the consideration of the Royal Society a few cursory remarks upon this curious monument of antiquity; especially, as it has not yet in a proper manner been communicated to the learned world. I. The three first letters undoubtedly form the Hebrew word הָדַר, PENETRALE, CONCLAVE, INTIMVS RECESSVS, &c. for a farther account of which, recourse may be had to the Hebrew lexicographers. The next two elements seem to be Beth and Thau, of which is composed the Phœnician word בְּתָא, probably the same with the Hebrew בֵּית, DOMVS; as the Phœnicians not seldom omitted, or suppressed, the letter Jod. This most evidently appears from בְּתָא, בֵּית, &c. for בֵּית, בֵּית, &c. ex- 1 Journal des Scavans, Suite de Decembre 1761. p. 82, 83, 84. A Amsterdam, 1761. 2 Val. Schind. Jo. Buxtorf. Christian. Stock. Jo. Leonhard. Reckenberg. aliique plur. lexicograph. Hebr. hibited by the Tyrian and Sidonian coins. The form of the *Thau* here seems to indicate the inscription to be of a later date. This character bears some resemblance to the figure of *Tzade*, preserved on certain medals of Tyre and Sidon; though these two, whatever may have been insinuated to the contrary by a writer of considerable note, are sufficiently distinguishable from each other. The three following letters present to our view the Hebrew word יָעֵל, *secvlvm, æternitas, perpetvitas, dvratio hominibus abscondita,* &c. Not the least difficulty occurs here. The three preceding letters are succeeded by *Koph*, *Beth*, and *Resch*, forming the noun יְבִי, *sepvlchrvm*; which, with the introduction just explained, sufficiently points out to us the nature of the inscription I am now upon. The four next Phœnician elements answer to the Hebrew יְבִי, *depositvs*. The true signification of the term, as used here, is preserved in the 3 Syriac. With regard to the following word יְבִי, *clarvs, innocens, ivstvs,* &c. I shall only beg leave to observe, that it cannot well be misunderstood. It will be almost superfluous to remark, that both this and the preceding word assume the nature of substantives here; the term יְבִי, *vir*, by a most common ellipsis, being suppressed. The four following characters combined produce the Hebrew יְבִי, *consvmmationibvs, omnino, penitvs,* &c. The reality of this word, from what --- 3 Buxtorf. Lex. Chaldaic. & Syriac. p. 97. Basileæ, 1622. has been laid down by the Hebrew lexicographers, may be most clearly evinced. The letters He, Zain, He, seem to constitute the participle ḥōḥāh, DORMIENS, DECUMBENS, &c. M. l’Abbé Barthelemy, unless I am deceived, takes the second of these elements for Jod. But this will neither be admitted by the form itself, nor the tenor of the inscription. The small stroke, or scratch, above this character, seems to be only an accidental blemish, occasioned by the injuries of time. The participle ḥōḥāh, VEHEMENTER AMANS, or INTIME DILIGENS, probably begins a new sentence. Some doubts may perhaps arise about the power of the first character. However, after the closest examination of the inscription, it appears to me to be certainly Resch. The verb ṭērē, TREMVIT, or COMMOTVS EST, immediately follows. This Chaldee word may likewise be rendered MAGNO CVM AFFECTV MOTVS EST, and deduced from the Arabic, according to Maius. The substantive ṭōn, POPVLVS, which immediately follows, comes in appositely enough here. The Carthaginians sometimes used the word ṭōn in the same, or at least an extremely similar, sense. This appears from some of the medals of Menæ, now called Menéo, an ancient town of Sicily, subject to the Carthaginians; on which we find ṭōn, po- --- 4 Val. Schind. Lex. Pentaglot. p. 866. Hanoviae, 1612. Christ. Stock. Clav. Ling. Sanct. Vet. Test. p. 528, 529. Jenæ, 1727. Jo. Leonhard. Reckenberg. Lib. Radic. five. Lex. Hebraic. p. 777. Jenæ, 1749. 5 Maius, apud. Jo. Leonhard. Reckenberg. ubi sup. p. 1386. 6 Numism. Antiqu. &c. à Thom. Pembr. et Mont. Gomer. Com. Collect. P. 2. T. 87. PVLVS MENARVM, or POPVLVS MENENIVS, to omit others that might with equal facility be produced, as I have many years since observed. For a farther account of אָנְיָה, I must beg leave to refer the curious to the Hebrew lexicographers, and particularly to Maius. The next word בּוֹשׁ, IN PONENDO, or * rather QVVM PONERETVR, (i.e. לֵאָרֶץ, or יִלְאָרֶץ, IN SEPVLCHRO, or IN TERRA) occurs in the very same sense, Psal. xlix. 15. which passage throws considerable light upon this part of the inscription. That the Punic dialect of the Phœnician, the language of our inscription, was not without such ellipses as that mentioned here, must be allowed probable enough, if Bochart's Latin version of the Punic words in Plautus may be considered as not very remote from truth. The three last words of the inscription are apparently הַנְבֵעַל כִּן ברמֶלֶך, HANNIBAL FILIVS BARMELEC, BARMILC, BORMILC, or BARMELECI. As the letter ρ in the conversion of Oriental words into Greek is sometimes lost, the Carthaginian name BARMELEC, or BORMILC, might have been pronounced BOMILC (and perhaps BOMILCAR) both by the Greeks and the Romans. For that the genuine Carthaginian names, when either written or pronounced by the individuals of those nations, were not a little corrupted and depraved, I think we have no manner of reason to doubt. 7 Maius, apud Jo. Leonh. Reckenberg. ubi sup. p. 51. * Vid. Stock. et Reckenberg. in vocib. בּוֹשׁ et שׁוֹתָה. 8 Boch. Chan. Lib. II. c. vi. 9 Id, ibid. c. vii, viii, xi. II. From the foregoing observations it most evidently appears, that the following arrangement of the words forming this inscription may be considered as not very remote from truth. The Latin and English versions of which words may, as I conceive, be appositely enough drawn up in the following terms. **PENETRALE DOMVS SECVLI** (five DOMVS PERPETVÆ)—SEPVLCHRVM DEPOSITI (hìc) CLARI (viri) CONSVMMATIONIBVS (i.e. OMNINO, PLANE, vel ARCTISSIME) DORMIENTIS—INTIME DILIGENS (eum) COMMOTVS (est) POPVLVS QVVM PONERETVR (scil. IN TERRA i.e. SEPELIRETVR) HANNIBAL BARMELEC (BARMILC BORMILC vel BARMELECI) FILIVS. THE INTERIOR PART OF THE HOUSE OF LONG DURATION (or LONG HOME i.e. THE GRAVE)—THE SEPULCHRE OF AN UPRIGHT MAN DEPOSITED (here) IN A MOST SOUND (or DEAD) SLEEP—THE PEOPLE HAVING A GREAT AFFECTION FOR HIM WERE VASTLY CONCERNED WHEN HANNIBAL THE SON OF BARMELEC (BARMILC or BORMILC) WAS PUT into the earth, or INTERRED. It ought to be here remarked, that the word terminates the second line, and begins the third; as also that the proper name HANNIBAL, by a similar kind of bisection, belongs both to the third and fourth lines. But this is by no means to be wondered at. The Greeks observed the same method of writing in their inscriptions, both of an earlier and a later date. III. That the words above explained form a sepulchral inscription, will admit of no dispute. The three first of them in particular, which seem to be a sort of preface or introduction to the proper inscription, render this incontestable; and the others, either in conjunction with or exclusive of them, amount to an assertion of this in direct terms, and consequently prove it to demonstration. That the term , the second word of the inscription, is equivalent to the Hebrew , notwithstanding the omission of Jod, is evident beyond contradiction, not only from the reason above assigned, but likewise because the expression denotes THE HOUSE OF LONG DURATION, A MAN’S LONG HOME, or THE GRAVE, the very sense it is used in here, ECCLES. xii. 5. Nor can the Jod well be looked upon as an essential part of the noun, since the plural of in the Hebrew is , and the Ethiopic term for a house is , agreeing in all respects with the second word here. M. l’Abbé Bar- --- 10 Chish. Antiquitat. Asiatic. pass. Vid. etiam Tho. Reinef. Synagogm. Inscript. Antiqu. pass. Lipsiæ, 1682. thelemy" takes the third letter of the third line for Vau, and assigns it the place of that element in "Journal des Savans, ubi sup. M. l'Abbé Barthelemy a takes a very similar character for Vau, in the inscription of Carpentras; which probably induced him to assign this figure the power of that element, though the inscription of Carpentras does not appear to me to have been first discovered in the island of Malta. The letters forming the Maltese-Phoenician inscription, which the French Abbé has attempted to explain, are very different from those of the inscription I have been considering, and the two characters in particular imagined to represent Vau in these monuments bear scarce any resemblance to each other. Hence it should seem to follow, according to M. l'Abbé, who b attributes the diversity of character in the Phoenician or Punic inscriptions rather to difference of place than distance of time, that the letter in question ought by no means to be looked upon as Vau. I shall not however pretend to avail myself of a notion, how hard soever it may bear upon him, that I consider at least as arbitrary and precarious, if not plainly false; but shall suspend any farther observations I may have to make on this head, 'till the publication of M. l'Abbé's famous memoir on the Phoenician letters, upon the superior merit of which he has himself with so much complacency c been pleased to dilate, and which some of his d admirers have placed in so glorious a light. In the mean time I must beg leave to remark, that the character before me does not only resemble one of the Chaldee forms of Pe, but likewise the e ancient Samaritan and Greek forms of the same element; and that the word formed of Resch and Pe, ΠΠ, is consonant enough to the tenor of the inscription. This, I conceive, sufficiently authorizes me at present to ascribe to the supposed Vau the power of Pe. If in this point I should happen to be wrong, M. l'Abbé will most certainly f rectify my mistake. I shall ever lie open to conviction, being determined in my researches and inquiries to sacrifice all inferior considerations to the love of truth. a M. de Guignes, De l'Orig. des Chin. p. 54. A Paris, 1760. Recueil d'Antiquit. &c. de Comte de Caylus, Tom. I. p. 73, 74. pl. XXVI. A Paris, 1752. b Journal des Savans, ubi sup. c Journal des Savans, Août 1760. p. 277. d M. de Guign. ubi. sup. p. 60. Journal des Savans, Decembre 1760. p. 348. e Joan. Baptist. Biancon. De Antiqu. Litter. Hebraeor. et Graecor. p. 31, 32. Bononiae, 1748. f Recueil des Medailles de Peuples et de Villes, &c. Tom. III. p. 140. A Paris, 1763. his alphabet. But the form of this character is totally different from that of the Phœnician Vau, especially as it is exhibited by the other Maltese inscription, of which he pretends to have given us so accurate a copy. Nor will the sense of that part of the inscription in which this letter appears afford the least countenance to such a supposition. On the contrary, the figure of this element well enough corresponds with that of the final square or Chaldee Pe, and the verb formed of Resch and Pe seems consonant enough to the tenor of the inscription. To what has been observed of the letter Zain, in the second line, we may add, that this character sufficiently resembles the Hebrew and Palmyrene Zain; and that the word הוהי, DORMIENTIS, very naturally concludes the sentence, of which it is a constituent part. All which if we admit, and allow Sig. Abate Venuti's copy to be in the main exact, as I cannot help thinking it is; the following alphabet, plainly deducible from that copy, will be found to contain seventeen of the Punic literary characters used in Malta, when our inscription first appeared. The Maltese-Punic alphabet. | Aleph | Beth | Ghimel | Daleth | He | Vau | Zain | Heth | Teth | Jod | Caph | |-------|------|--------|--------|----|-----|------|------|------|-----|-----| | Ł | Ł | Ł | Ł | Ł | Ł | Ł | Ł | Ł | Ł | Ł | | Lamed | Mem | Nun | Samech | Ajin | Pe | Tzade | Koph | Resch | Schin | Thau | |-------|-----|-----|--------|------|----|-------|------|-------|-------|------| | Ł | Ł | Ł | Ł | Ł | Ł | Ł | Ł | Ł | Ł | Ł | A Plate of Sig. Abate Venuti's copy of the Punic Inscription lately discovered in ered in Malta. The Maltese-Punic inscription. [Tab. XVII.] Hence 'tis obvious at first sight, that the forms of some of these letters differ from those of the correspondent elements in M. l'Abbé Barthélemy's alphabet; and that the characters he takes for Vau and Jod, which has indeed been already remarked, I suppose to be Pe and Zain. Which of us is in the right, after a more accurate copy of the inscription can be procured, perhaps the learned may be able to decide. IV. Who Hannibal the son of Barmelec, Barmelc, or Bormilc, was, or when he lived, for want of sufficient light from ancient history, I cannot take upon me precisely to determine. We may however, I think, rest assured, that he died a considerable time (perhaps several centuries) after the Citiean inscriptions, or at least the earliest of them, first appeared. The forms of several of the letters, particularly of the Aleph, Ghimel, He, Heth, Caph, Ajin, Koph, Schin, and Thau, so considerably differing from those of the same elements in the earlier Phœnician times, seem to render this incontestably clear. I know, indeed, that M. l’Abbé Barthelemy would be thought to insinuate, if he does not directly assert this, that such variations are always to be attributed to difference of place. The character representing Koph in our inscription was not the original, nor even the earlier, form of that element. One somewhat resembling it was however used by the Carthaginians in Sicily, before they were dispossessed of that island by the Romans. This plainly enough appears from the Punic coin in Tab. XVII. now in my small cabinet, and never before published. This piece seems to exhibit the word כARTHADA, the very Punic name of Carthage, according to a Solinus, in Punic characters; the first of which bears some resemblance to the later figure of Koph, as preserved on the monument under consideration. The letters on the reverse are not so legible. They nevertheless appear to me to form the names of two Carthaginian cities in Sicily. The first of these was perhaps מOTA, or rather MOTYA; the Vau and Jod having been not unfrequently omitted in Phœnician, and therefore probably in Punic, words. The name of the other town, as originally impressed on the medal, being in a great measure defaced; I shall not venture at a communication of it to the learned world, but leave it to be cleared up by some other coin or inscription that may possibly hereafter occur. That the names of two Sicilian cities in Punic characters were sometimes impressed upon the reverse of one coin, may be fairly inferred from a Carthaginian medal now in my possession; of which I may probably, in a future paper, give a particular account. A form of Koph pretty similar to that visible on the monument I am considering likewise appears on a coin of Achola, Acholla, or Achulla, as the medal presents the word to our view, struck in the Augustan age. From what has been here observed, as well as from the resemblance both these figures of Koph bear to the square or Chaldee form of the same element, we may collect the remains of antiquity that exhibit them not to have been the produce of the earlier Phœnician times. a J. Solin, Polybius, cap. xxvii, Traject, ad Rhen. 1689. rather than distance of time. But besides that such a notion runs counter to what he had before advanced, this by no means seems agreeable to truth, or the natural course of things. For the Punic and Phœnician alphabets were originally the very same, and continued so, or nearly so, I make not the least doubt, long after the foundation of Carthage. And this is rendered highly probable by the letters preserved on many Carthaginian coins. To what then can we so properly ascribe the aforesaid variations as to distance of time, since the letters so varied in the Carthaginian territories had undoubtedly the same forms with those of the correspondent elements in the more ancient Phœnician alphabet, (used both there and at Tyre, Sidon, Citium, &c.) several ages before? In fine, the same characters at first prevailed both at Carthage and in Phœnicia; though these, or at least several of them, in after ages, assumed pretty different forms. So that the more any Punic or Phœnician literary characters, in whatever country found, recede from those that formed the Samaritan or earliest Phœnician alphabet, the later they ought undoubtedly to be deemed, as I have elsewhere observed. Nor will M. l’Abbé, I flatter myself, notwithstanding the insinuation hinted at here, be displeased with me, if on this occasion I should adopt another of his opinions. After the Carthaginian provinces had been subdued by the Romans, the people still retained the use of their antient proper names, and spoke the Punic --- 13 De l'Orig. des Chin. par M. de Guignes, p. 39. A Paris, 1760. 14 M. de Guign. ubi sup. p. 39. tongue. The former of these points is abundantly clear from coins and inscriptions, published by the authors here referred to; and the latter of them is no less clear from writers, of the best and most undoubted authority. Nay, we have good reason to believe, that the Phoenician or Punic language was spoken and understood in some of those provinces even to the days of St. Austin. With regard to the island of Malta in particular, which was so long subject to the Carthaginians, it may not be improper to remark, that the entire reduction of it seems scarce to have been effected before the time of Julius Caesar by the Romans. For although the people of that island were obliged to submit to the Roman power, after the destruction of Carthage; yet they found means afterwards to assert their independency, and shake off the Roman yoke. But notwithstanding they had been rendered a formidable maritime power, by the extensive commerce which they enjoyed, they were finally subjugated by Caesar, though with no small difficulty, about forty-five years before the birth of Christ. It may justly therefore be questioned whether the Latin tongue was ever much used in Malta before the death of that conqueror, or rather before the commencement of the Christian era, which was but little posterior to it. Be that however as it will, that 15 Jo. Goth. Richter. Nov. Num. in Colon. Karthag. African. Percus. &c. p. 8. Lipsiae, 1742. Numism. Antiqu. Thom. Pem-broch. et Montis Gomeric. Com. P. 2. T. 89. Sam. Bochart. Chan. Lib. II. c. xxiv. Tho. Reines. ubi sup. p. 487, 488. 16 Christoph. Hendreich, in Carthag. p. 8, 9. Francofurti ad Oderam, 1664. 17 Appian. Alexandrin. apud Burchard. Nidersted. in Malta Vet. et Nov. lib. II. c. vi. p. 69. Helmestadii, 1660. the use of the Punic language and the Punic proper names was retained in Malta, as an antient part of the Carthaginian territories, at least three or four centuries after the last mentioned period, if not much longer, from what has been here advanced, is abundantly clear. Nay, that the Punic tongue is even at this day the vernacular language of the lower part of the Maltese, though deformed by many corruptions, and disguised by the accession of various foreign words, after perusing what has been communicated on that head to the learned world by Canonico Agius, I am strongly inclined to believe. Since therefore the ducts of several of the letters indicate this inscription to be of a later date, we cannot but suppose it to have been many years (perhaps several centuries) posterior to the conclusion of the first Punic war. And since Hannibal Ben Barmelec, or Bormilc, is mentioned therein as a person of consideration, whose death was greatly lamented by the people; perhaps he was either a popular senator of Malta, or one of the suffetes there, (the Punic form of government not improbably prevailing in that island, even when dependent on the Romans, as it did in other places that had been subject to the Carthaginian state) a century at least after Julius Cæsar had given the finishing stroke to the liberties of the Maltese. This, I say, appears to me by no means improbable; but that he really sustained either of the characters here mentioned, or lived at the time here supposed, I must not presume positively to affirm. The forms of some of the letters will not permit us however, I 18 Gio. Pietro Francesco Agius de Soldanis, *Della Lingua Punic a presentamente usata da Maltesi*, &c. In Roma, 1750. 19 Hendreich, ubi sup. p. 316. Reinef. ubi sup. think, to assign this inscription a higher age. They rather announce a later than an earlier date. V. The words forming this inscription are for the most part either Hebrew or Punic. Of the former sort are חָרְבוֹת, אֶסְתֵּר, רַחֲמִים, כָּבֵר, הָרָם, עָלָם, נְשָׁתָן; of the latter בְּכֶלֶת, בַּת, נֶכֶה, בַּת, besides the proper names רַחֲמִים, כָּבֵר, הָרָם, עָלָם, נְשָׁתָן, so that only נְשָׁתָן and רַחֲמִים seem to bear any relation to the Chaldee and Syriac. Hence we may plainly see, as well as from what I have formerly observed, that neither the Punic nor Phœnician was almost entirely Syriac; and consequently, that the opposite notion, advanced by M. l'Abbé Barthélemy and M. de Guignes, together with the superstructure they have erected upon it, must necessarily fall to the ground. 'Tis worthy observation here, that we have not met with the proper name of a Carthaginian in Punic characters, on any of the remains of antiquity, before the monument whose inscription I have been considering occurred; and it likewise ought to be remarked, that the word HANNIBAL is formed of the very same Punic letters in this inscription that it has been supposed to have antiently consisted of by the learned. With regard to the ellipses pointed out to us in the Latin and English versions of this inscription, they are such as have ever been common in the eastern world; and similar ones will present themselves to 20 M. de Guign. ubi sup. p. 60. Journal des Sav. Decembre 1760. p. 348. 21 Boch. Chan. Lib. II. c. xii. Hendr. ubi sup. p. 149. Ad. Littlet. Ling. Latin. Dict. our view in passages of scripture, too numerous, as well as too obvious, to be cited here. The length of the inscription, as it seems to have only a single person for its object, as well as the forms of its letters, will undoubtedly evince it to be the produce of a later age; though the precise time of its first appearance, for want of sufficient light from antient history, I cannot take upon me to ascertain. Nor shall I be so vain as to pronounce the explication now submitted to the judgment of the Royal Society in all points true, as I have not yet met with a copy of the inscription absolutely to be depended upon. However, I hope it will not be found very remote from truth. If hereafter, by means of a more accurate transcript, I should discover any errors in what has been here advanced, I shall most readily retract them, and ever with great pleasure listen to better information. All farther remarks on this curious monument of antiquity, so highly meriting the attention of the learned, I must at present supersede; having now only time to beg you would believe me to be, with the most perfect consideration and regard, SIR, Your much obliged, and most obedient servant, Christ-Church, Oxon. May 20th, 1763. John Swinton. Vid. Johan. Buxtorf. Thesaur. Grammat. Ling. Sanct. Hebr. & Christian. Nold. Concordant. Particular. Ebraeo-Chaldaic. pass. Vid. etiam Boch. Chan. Lib. I. c. xxxv. p. 705. Francofurti ad Moenum, 1681.