{"title":"Punic","authors":"C. Baurain","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199699445.013.26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter focuses on the Punic literature of the Roman imperial period. Since Punic works have not survived from either the Punic city or the Roman city, investigations on Punic literature can only be based on indirect testimonies—including Neo-Punic epigraphy, a temporary survival of the Neo-Punic language and writing, and fragments in translation attributed to Mago the agronomist—or on a cautious assessment of the cultural mood in the Punic city and the role the neighbouring Numidian population may have played in the conservation of the Punic literary output. From this viewpoint, the fate meted out in 146 bce, just after the fall of Carthage, by the Roman Senate to the Agronomic Treatise written by Mago in Punic and to the libri Punici most probably written in Greek is worth special attention because these works could have been one of the stimuli for the Graeco-Latin literature that flourished in Roman Africa right up to the late imperial period. As for other writings in Punic, kept in the archives of Carthage in Punic times, they probably served primarily to preserve traditional knowledge. The contents and the long and turbulent history of the handwritten archives assembled much later in Timbuktu and elsewhere in Mali provide a glimpse into the diversity of topics treated in the Punic language and writing by Carthaginians who lived before 146 bce. As for the Roman city, there is nothing tangible that would support the idea of a ‘renaissance’ in Punic literary output.","PeriodicalId":436040,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of the Literatures of the Roman Empire","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Oxford Handbook of the Literatures of the Roman Empire","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199699445.013.26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This chapter focuses on the Punic literature of the Roman imperial period. Since Punic works have not survived from either the Punic city or the Roman city, investigations on Punic literature can only be based on indirect testimonies—including Neo-Punic epigraphy, a temporary survival of the Neo-Punic language and writing, and fragments in translation attributed to Mago the agronomist—or on a cautious assessment of the cultural mood in the Punic city and the role the neighbouring Numidian population may have played in the conservation of the Punic literary output. From this viewpoint, the fate meted out in 146 bce, just after the fall of Carthage, by the Roman Senate to the Agronomic Treatise written by Mago in Punic and to the libri Punici most probably written in Greek is worth special attention because these works could have been one of the stimuli for the Graeco-Latin literature that flourished in Roman Africa right up to the late imperial period. As for other writings in Punic, kept in the archives of Carthage in Punic times, they probably served primarily to preserve traditional knowledge. The contents and the long and turbulent history of the handwritten archives assembled much later in Timbuktu and elsewhere in Mali provide a glimpse into the diversity of topics treated in the Punic language and writing by Carthaginians who lived before 146 bce. As for the Roman city, there is nothing tangible that would support the idea of a ‘renaissance’ in Punic literary output.