to open a trade with the inhabitants, in the course of which one of the sailors seduced the Phoenician nurse, and suggested that when the vessel left, she should allow herself to be carried off in it.  The woman, whose parents were still alive at Sidon, came into the scheme, and being apprised of the date of the ship’s departure, stole away from the palace unobserved, taking with her three golden goblets, and also her master’s child, the boy of whom she had charge.  It was evening, and all having been prepared beforehand, the nurse and child were hastily smuggled on board, the sails were hoisted, and the ship was soon under weigh.  The wretched woman died ere the voyage was over, but the boy survived, and was carried by the traders to Ithaca, and there sold for a good sum to Laertes.

It is not suggested that these narratives, in the form in which they have come down to us, are historically true.  There may never have been an “Io, daughter of Inachus,” or an “Eumaeus, son of Ctesius Ormenides,” or an island, “Syria called by name, over against Ortygia,” or even a Ulysses or a Laertes.  But the tales could never have grown up, have been invented, or have gained acceptance, unless the practice of kidnapping, on which they are based, had been known to be one in which the Phoenicians of the time indulged, at any rate occasionally.  We must allow this blot on the Sidonian escutcheon, and can only plead, in extenuation of their offence, first, the imperfect morality of the age, and secondly, the fact that such deviations from the line of fair-dealing and honesty on the part of the Sidonian traders must have been of rare occurrence, or the flourishing and lucrative trade, which was the basis of all the glory and prosperity of the people, could not possibly have been established.  Successful commerce must rest upon the foundation of mutual confidence; and mutual confidence is impossible unless the rules of fair dealing are observed on both sides, if not invariably, yet, at any rate, so generally that the infraction of them is not contemplated on either side as anything but the remotest contingency.

Of the internal government of Sidon during this period no details have come down to us.  Undoubtedly, like all the Phoenician cities in the early times,[1434] she had her own kings; and we may presume, from the almost universal practice in ancient times, and especially in the East,[1435] that the monarchy was hereditary.  The main duties of the king were to lead out the people to battle in time of war, and to administer justice in time of peace.[1436] The kings were in part supported, in part held in check, by a powerful aristocracy—­an aristocracy which, we may conjecture, had wealth, rather than birth, as its basis.  It does not appear that any political authority was possessed by the priesthood, nor that the priesthood was a caste, as in India, and (according to some writers) in Egypt.  The priestly office was certainly not attached by any general custom to the person of the kings, though kings might be priests, and were so occasionally.[1437]