2"<i S. VII. May 28. '69.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



441 



CARTHAGINIAN PASSAGE IN PLADTCS. 



(2"^ S. vii. 393. 423.) 



As your learned correspondents T. J. Buck- 

 ton and E. T. have not exactly fulfilled the re- 

 quest of A. A. R. to be informed of the most recent 

 work in which the Carthaginian passage in Hhe 

 Poenulus of Plautus is discussed, will you allow me 

 to name, as the most recent, to my knowledge, the 

 following : " The Interpretation attempted of the 

 Phoenician Verses found in the Poenulus of Plau- 

 tus, by William Beeston of the Honourable Society 

 of Lincoln's Inn, and sometime of Queen's Col- 

 lege, Cambridge (London, Charles Cox, 1850.") 

 Mr. Beeston's conclusion is, that of the sixteen 

 verses which constitute the Punic portion of the 

 soliloquy, the first two are Phoenician or Ca- 

 naanitish, and the remaining six with the shorter 

 non-Latin speeches of Hanno and the Nurse, are 

 in the Libyc dialect of the speaker. The inter- 

 pretations of Bochart and Gesenius, Mr. Beeston 

 shows to be contradictory and subversive of each 

 other ; and, holding that the substantial integrity 

 of the text has been unjustly impugned, he pro- 

 ceeds to demonstrate how, with but few emenda- 

 tions (chiefly literal), good common sense is to be 

 made of the lines which have puzzled so many. 

 I will cite a translation of one of these verses, the 

 sixth, only to show by what (if I may so speak) 

 an Ossianic circumbendibus the intimation is made 

 that AntWamas is dead, viz. : "Of the troop that 

 perambulate darkness is he, — the hosts that in 

 darkness have homes." By brief but lucid criti- 

 cal examination, Mr. Beeston establishes such 

 similarity between the Carthaginian of Hanno 

 and the Hebrew of Moses, as to identify both lan- 

 guages with the Phojnician, and he then adds : — 



" The identity of the Phoenician and the Hebrew tongues 

 established, it follows that the Israelites received their 

 language from the descendants of -Canaan, the son of 

 Ham ; and that the Hebrew of the Bible is no other than 

 the Canaanitish or Phoenician tongue, expressed in the 

 Chaldaic character, the character brought (we may well 

 believe) by Abraham himself from Ur of the Chaldees. 

 But the books of Moses offer us evidence, hardly to be 

 resisted, that the language of his writings was also the 

 language of the Antediluvian world ; and hence it follows 

 further, in the grand confusion of languages at Babel, 

 the primitive tongue was continued to mankind in the 

 line of Canaan ; and so by a circuitous providence, the 

 language spoken by the second Adaji was (in the main) 

 the language of the first." 



Pursuing this subject, Mr. Beeston finds that 

 the analysation of Carthaginian names will prove 

 the truth of early Carthaginian history. Thus, 

 he derives Dido from the same root as that of the 

 royal Psalmist, signifying Beloved One ; Elisa is 

 El-Ishsha, that is, " Woman-hero " or " heroine ; " 

 Bursa, is Bira-Ishsha, "Woman's Citadel;" and 

 Carthage, a contraction of Kereth-Haggo {Karth- 

 haggo, Karthago), " Central City " or " Metropo- 

 lis." 



But I am straying from the object had in view 

 by A. A. R., who may recall me (as the ancients 

 did the reciters of legends at the Dionysiac festi- 

 vals, who told stories that had not Dionysus for a 

 hero), with ou5ey irpos Aiwvaov\ I will only add 

 that if he has any diflSculty in procuring Mr. Bees- 

 ton's little but useful work, I shall be very happy 

 to lend him my copy. J. Doran. 



21. Royal Crescent, Netting Hill, W. 



See The Punic Passage in Plautus collated with 

 parallel Passages of the Hebreiv Scriptures, by the 

 Rev. W. Hamilton, A.M. of Trinity College, Dub- 

 lin, — a paper in the Transactions of the Royal 

 Irish Academy, vol. xviii. 1838. J. H. T. 



■yno2TA2i2. 

 (2°* S. vii. 393.) 



The warning of Whately (Logic, 2nd edit. 

 p. 295.) applies to such as think the original root 

 of a word limits the sense ; but etymology is use- 

 ful in retaining words in their original meaning, 

 and preventing writers unversed in linguistics 

 from wandering too far from the original idea 

 conveyed by the root : the way in which some 

 persons, who ought to know better, use the word 

 eliminate, for example, is discreditable. 



In explaining the three words, viruffraa-is, sub- 

 stantia, and substance, it is well to take their 

 meanings from dictionaries of reputation, and thus 

 see how they have diverged from the radical idea 

 of standing under proper to all three. 



Thus, Liddell and Scott say as to tlie word 

 viroaTaais, that it means, I. a standing under. II. 

 1. A stand, base, bottom, prop ; 2. dregs, mud; 3. 

 ground work, subject matter; 4. substance, reality; 



5. person of the Godhead. IIL 1. Quality of 

 undergoing or undertaking ; 2. undertaking, en- 

 terprise. 



So Scheller, on the word substantia, says it 

 means, I. that in which a thing consists, substance, 

 essence, divided into, 1., substance or contents of a 

 thing, property, wealth, goods, effects; 2. argu- 

 ment, subject matter ; 3. the right to anything ; 

 4. the firmness or solidity of a thing. II. That 

 by which anything subsists, food. 



Then Johnson defines the word substance as, 1., 

 being, something existing ; 2., that which supports 

 accidents; 3. the essential part; 4. something 

 real, not imaginary, 5., body, corporeal nature; 



6. wealth, means of life. 



It will be seen clearly, then, that the notion of 

 standing under is carried through all the various 

 ' meanings of these three words. The difficulty of 

 Archbishop Whately appears to lie mainly in the 

 Greek word viroaruais, m relation to the doctrine 

 of the Trinity ; but as God appears iinder the 



