Philosophical transactions, Vol. L. Part I. For the year 1757. · Various
+SIR+,
BEFORE we enter upon a more particular consideration of this noble piece of antiquity, it may not be improper to premise the general account (and indeed the only one I have met with yet published), which is given of it by Mess. Cochin and Bellicard, in a little [57]treatise printed at Paris in 1755. These gentlemen acquaint us, that in 1749 there were only three pillars of this building visible, and that they were buried half way within the ground: but that soon after, workmen being employed by order of the King of the Two Sicilies to dig at the place, they came to the pedestals of those pillars: and at length discovered the building to have been a temple, which (as it was judged by the principal[58] idol found there, and some other circumstances) was dedicated to Serapis. They tell us further, that many statues and vases of excellent workmanship had been taken out of the ruins; and that the whole temple was extremely magnificent, being built, or cased throughout, with marble, even to the parts appropriated to the meanest offices. This account, tho’ short, is yet sufficient to excite in the curious a desire to be more fully informed, both as to the ancient and modern state of this place. To gratify in some measure that desire is the purpose of the present letter.
In order to form any conjecture concerning the antiquity of the building before us, we must know, that the worship of Serapis, to whom it is supposed to have been consecrated, was not introduced at Rome till towards the end of the republic; and then tolerated in the suburbs only[59]. However, at length he was allowed to have temples erected to him within the precincts of the city; chiefly by the authority of Vespasian, who was thought to have restored a blind man[60] to his sight at Alexandria by the aid and direction of this deity. And upon this account he continued to be held in high veneration by Titus and Domitian, the sons of that Emperor, as appears by their [61]stamping his image on the reverse of their coins. Now as it is reasonable to suppose, that the other cities of Italy followed the example of the metropolis in this instance, as we find, they did in others of a similar nature; we may with some probability place the foundation of this temple at Pozzuoli somewhere within the period assigned above. As for the particular state of this building, it is situated on the west side of the town, near to, and upon a level with, the beach (_See_ TAB. II.). Its grand entrance is towards the south, and seems to have been a vestibule supported by four columns. This introduces you into a spacious portico, or corridor[62], which was designed to defend such as assembled here to worship from the injuries of the weather; as also to afford a commodious passage into a range of rooms of different dimensions, disposed on all the four sides of the court.
Nor can a provision for washing or bathing in this temple seem strange to any one, who reflects, how high a rank this mode of purification held among the religious ceremonies of almost all nations of the world. As for the Romans, with whom we are principally concerned in the present inquiry, the subsistence of this usage among them might be abundantly shewn by the testimonies of their writers; and also by the accommodations provided for it in other buildings of the same character with that before us. Some of these still remain within the neighbourhood of Pozzuolo, _viz._ the magnificent temple near the lake of Avernus ascribed to Apollo, which has an apartment adjoining to it indisputably intended for the purpose intimated above. For it is furnished with several stone cisterns, whose inward dimensions are proportioned to the ordinary size of an human body; and near them is a spring, out of which the water was taken up, and poured into a bason hollowed out in the side of the wall: from thence it ran along in a groove or channel cut in the ends of the cisterns, to be let out upon the persons bathing in them, according to their pleasure, or as occasion should require. So likewise in the temple of Venus (as it is commonly called) near Baiæ, there is a large chamber containing several stone seats for washing, with little cells contiguous to it for undressing before, and anointing the body and dressing afterwards.
I have but one more particular to add concerning the apartment in the north-west angle of the temple, _viz._ that, when it was cleared of its rubbish, there was found in a niche in one of its sides a male and female figure naked, and in the most flagrant act of natural lewdness. It is now (as we were informed) in a private room in the palace at Portici, nor can be seen without the King’s special permission. In the same place, probably, may stand the statue of a satyr in an unnatural action with a goat, which was found at Herculaneum, and is, they say, of exquisite sculpture, but concealed in the palace above-mentioned with the same strict care as the former.
Having thus viewed the several chambers in the exterior parts of the building, it is requisite (in order to a regular prosecution of our design) to return to the grand entrance. And here, passing thro’ the corridor above described, we come to a square court or _atrium_ paved with large slabs of white marble streaked with blue or greyish veins. At the distance of 25 feet further, in the center of the said court, stood the temple properly so called, containing a circular area of 54 feet diameter, and elevated above the level of the pavement, so as to admit an ascent to it of five steps[64], in four different parts answering to the four sides of the corridor. This area is surrounded with sixteen pedestals, on which formerly were columns to support a rotundo or dome. Against each of these columns, on the outside, there seems to have been placed a statue, and, in the intermediate spaces, vases for incense, or lavers for washing, upon low stands on the floor. In the middle of the temple was erected the grand altar, the traces of which still remain, with a sink or drain near it to receive and carry off the blood of the victims, _&c._
Northward of the temple, and at the distance of 25 feet, being the same space, that was between it and the corridor at the entrance, was once another stately vestibule or pavilion, supported by four columns four feet and an half in diameter, and of the Corinthian order, as appears by three of them, which still subsist standing in a line with the outer face of the corridor. This pavilion (if we may judge by analogy from what we find in other temples) led to an inner recess or _sacrarium_ terminating, probably, in the segment of a circle: but of this we had no certain proof, as the rubbish was not yet removed from this part of the building. I beg leave further to mention a remarkable appearance in some of the columns of this temple, _viz._ that that part of them, which was lowermost, as well as that, which was nearest the capitals, is well preserved and pretty entire; while part of the intermediate space for two or three feet together is discoloured, as if it had suffered by burning; and also excavated in such a manner[65], as to contain multitudes of little shell-fish, which appear, like the pholades in some stones, almost totally inclosed within their cells, so as not to be got out without breaking. I know no way to account for this so probable; as by supposing, that the lower parts of these columns were secured by the mass of rubbish, that inclosed them, as the uppermost were by their elevated situation, from being perforated either by the corrosive quality of the sea, which (according to tradition) formerly covered the site of this temple; or by the animalcula, which are bred in that element; while the middle parts standing in the water were (perhaps for ages) exposed to the injuries mentioned above.
I had no opportunity of taking the height of the uppermost line, where the above-mentioned alteration in the columns ended, from the level of the sea in the bay; which would have shewn how high the water must have risen formerly above its present mark, to produce the effect ascribed to it on this hypothesis. But, however that may be, the nature of the situation of this place[66] being considered, the innovation supposed to have happened in it will not, I presume, be thought improbable; especially in a country so plentifully stored with combustible matter in its interior parts, and consequently so liable to changes in its outward form, as this is, and has been for many ages. For an extraordinary instance of this we need go but a little way from this place, _viz._ to Il Monte Nuovo, a hill about four miles in compass, which in 1538 was cast up in one night’s time by an eruption, whereby the greatest part of the Lucrine lake was filled up, and the town of Tripergola, with a church, convent, hospital, and other buildings, intirely buried.
I shall conclude with acquainting you, that at the corner of the court of this temple, near the present entrance, there lie some large bases of marble, which (as we were informed) were taken out of the sea at about a mile’s distance from Pozzuolo, and are inscribed DVSARI SACRUM. What was the original situation of these monuments, it may not be possible now to ascertain. As for DVSARES mentioned in the inscription upon them, G. Vossius[67] (upon the authority of Tertullian, and Stephanus Byzantius) makes him to have been an Arabian deity, the same as Bacchus or Sol according to the Roman theology. That learned man is likewise inclined to think, that the name DVSARES is compounded of two Hebrew words; one of which signifies _joy_, and the other, _the earth_, i. e. mortals, who inhabit it. This etymology properly expresses the genial effects of the sun, which makes glad the heart of man by ripening the fruits of the earth, especially the grape: Whence Virgil calls wine, _Munera lætitiamque Dei._ Æn. i. _v._ 640. and stiles Bacchus the fabled inventer of it, ----_Bacchus lætitiæ dator._ Ib. _v._ 738. I am, +SIR,+ With the greatest respect, Your most obedient humble Servant, J. Nixon. London, March 14. 1757. XXII. _Some Remarks on a_ Parthian _Coin with a_ Greek _and_ Parthian _Legend, never before published. In a Letter from the Rev._ John Swinton, _M.A. of_ Christ-Church, Oxon. _F.R.S. to the Rev._ Thomas Birch, _D.D. Secret. R. S._
1. The Greek legend, had all of it appeared, would, undoubtedly have been either ΒΑϹΙΛΕωΝ ΜΕΓΑϹ ΜΟΝΝΗϹΗϹ, or ΒΑϹΙΛΕΥϹ ΒΑϹΙΛΕωΝ ΜΕΓΑϹ ΜΟΝΝΗϹΗϹ; of which I should chuse the former, notwithstanding it is such Parthian Greek, as the round of the medal seems not to have been capable of containing the latter. It will be, at first sight, observed, that this legend is different from those of the Parthian coins hitherto described; which are exhibited in the [69]genitive, not the nominative, case. The last two letters MO leave no room to doubt, tho’ the O is not so extremely well preserved, that the piece was struck when Monneses sat upon the Parthian throne. It is true, indeed, the first element of the prince’s name is not so apparently a _Mu_; tho’ it resembles that letter, even as preserved on this very medal, much more than any other of the Greek alphabet. It is however totally unlike the _Alpha_ near it, as well as all the other forms of that element to be met with in Montfaucon[70], and bears not the least resemblance to _Beta_[71], particularly the _Beta_ which ought to have been impressed on this piece; as most evidently appears from a particle of that letter, visible in its proper place. From whence we may infer, that the character I am considering must be _Mu_; as _Alpha_, _Beta_, and _Mu_, were the only initial letters, according to Dr. Vaillant[72], of the names of the Parthian kings reigning after the introduction of the _Omega_ of the minuscular form, as it here occurs, upon the Parthian coins. But Monneses was the only one of those princes whose name began with _My_, and consequently the two last Greek elements on this medal are part of his name. The metal and size of this piece, as none belonging to the other Parthian monarchs seem to have been yet met with of the same form, which exactly agree with those of Monneses’s[73] coin published by Dr. Vaillant, may likewise be urged, as an additional argument of no small weight, in support of my opinion.
3. This notion will likewise receive a farther accession of strength from the characters of which the unknown legend is composed. The first of them so nearly approaches one of the forms of the Palmyrene _Pe_, as it appears in [77]Mr. Dawkins’s alphabet, that we may without scruple ascribe to it the power of that letter. The second is so like the Palmyrene and the Chaldee _Daleth_[78], that it ought indubitably to pass for that element. The third differs something, tho’ not greatly[79], from one of the forms of the Palmyrene _He_. The fifth, which likewise occupies the eighth place, is by no means remote from the figures of the [80]Palmyrene and Chaldee _Nun_. The sixth occurred in the third place before. With regard to the seventh, it seems to me pretty strongly to resemble some forms of the Palmyrene _Mem_[81], and even exactly to answer to that of the same letter in [82]one of the Palmyrene inscriptions preserved amongst those celebrated remains of antiquity commonly, tho’ perhaps improperly, stiled _The Ruins of_ PERSEPOLIS. The ninth is the _He_ touched upon before. The tenth, which also succeeded the third, if the powers of the other elements have been rightly determined, must be _Schin_.
Nor does this character, if we view it in a certain position, appear very remote from a rude form of that letter. This legend then, according to what is here advanced, as it now remains, consists of the words----PADESHANE MONESH, PADESHAN EMONESH, or [83]PADESHAN AMONESH, that is, MONESH, or AMONESH,----OF KINGS; the word PADISHAH, or rather PADESHAH, as it seems to have been written and pronounced by the [84]ancient Persians, in the Pehlawian, Pehelawian, or Bastanian, that is, the old Persic, tongue, denoting [85]KING. That NI, or NE, was sometimes a masculine plural termination in the antient Persic, seems to appear from the word, or rather words, [bər.zaivašŋī.], BIR. ZEIVESHNI, LONGÆVI, which occurs in Dr. Hyde[86]. And that the vowels A and E were sometimes prefixed to the Persian proper names, in the remoter periods of time, is abundantly manifest, from the words SFITAMAN, ESFINTAMAN, or ESPINTAMAN, the [87]name of either the father or one of the ancestors of Zerâtusht; XERXES, [88]AXERXES, or AXERSES, and others of the same kind, that might, with equal facility, be produced. Whether therefore we read this legend----PADESHANE MONESH, PADESHAN EMONESH, or PADESHAN AMONESH, we cannot greatly err.
As the coin was not so perfectly struck, part of the Greek legend is thereby apparently lost; from whence, and the evident want of a word there, we may conclude, that the Parthian legend, for Parthian by the explication here laid down it appears to be, on the correspondent part of the reverse, must have met with the same fate. What that Parthian term was, I cannot take upon me to say; but the whole legend was probably something like THE GREAT KING MONNESES, MONNESES THE KING OF KINGS, or MONNESES[89] THE GREAT KING OF KINGS; all which titles are intirely consonant to those assumed by the Parthian kings[90], and transmitted down to us on their other coins. The Persian, or Parthian, termination of the proper name MONNESES, and others that occur, was ESH. This may be inferred from the legend now before me, in conjunction with Scripture[91], and has been remarked by some good authors[92]. That the Greeks also expressed the _Schin_ by their _Sigma_, and superadded another termination to such words, is sufficiently manifest from the Persian, or Parthian ARSHAK[93], which was converted into ARSACES by the Greek writers.
I must farther observe, that, according to Herodotus[94], the antient letters of the Persians were those used by the Assyrians; which I take to have been the same with the elements that prevailed amongst the Syrians, and formed the alphabet of the Palmyrenes. Nay, we may collect from [95]Epiphanius, that a considerable part of the Persians used the Palmyrene characters as late as the decline of the fourth century after CHRIST. All which being maturely weighed, I cannot forbear thinking the interpretation of the Parthian legend here laid down in a good degree probable. I am far however from insisting upon the truth of it. I shall only beg to be indulged the liberty of proposing it to the consideration of our most illustrious Society, and leave the fate of it intirely to the decision of so very eminent a part of the learned world. 4. But however my explication of the Parthian legend may be received, I believe it will scarce be denied, that the coin was struck in the reign of Monneses, one of the Parthian kings; this point having been so clearly evinced, by the reasons above alledged. It may not be improper here to remark, that the republic of letters has been obliged with the publication of two of this prince’s medals; the first of which was [96]coined in the year of the Parthian æra 422, and the other in 425[97]. Neither of them however exhibits the _Victory_ impressed on the reverse of mine. That symbol, adopted by the Parthians in imitation of the Roman manner, must undoubtedly have alluded to some victory, or at least some remarkable advantage, gained by the Parthian forces over the Romans, a little before the piece was struck. What that advantage was, when and where obtained, and whether history conspires with the medal, in order to settle this point, I am next to inquire.
5. Monneses, if Dr. Vaillant[98] may be credited, ascended the Parthian throne in the year of the Arsacidæ 422, nearly coincident with the 166th of CHRIST, when M. Aurelius and L. Verus presided over the Roman world. But so far were the Parthians at that time from gaining any victories over the Romans, that they were every where worsted by them, and put to the rout. A Roman army, under the command of Avidius Cassius, had penetrated into Mesopotamia and Assyria, ravaged those provinces, laid Seleucia in ashes, taken Ctesiphon, and levelled the royal palace there with the ground, according to Dio[99], the preceding year. Nay, it appears both from [100]Capitolinus and the Roman[101] coins, that M. Aurelius and L. Verus triumphed over the Parthians, the very year after Monneses, as [102]Dr. Vaillant will have it, came to the crown. All which that celebrated antiquary acknowleges to be true; and adds, that Monneses concluded an infamous peace with the Romans, ceding to them the whole province of Mesopotamia, for which he was soon after deposed by his subjects. Here then we can discover not the faintest traces of a reason for the appearance of a _Victory_ upon the medals of this prince.
Nor does any thing like a reason for such an appearance, in antient history, occur, before the 950th year of Rome, corresponding with the 197th of +CHRIST+; when the Parthians, animated by the civil dissentions, which reigned amongst the Romans, Albinus and Severus then fiercely contending for the empire, entered Mesopotamia with a powerful army[103], and reduced to their obedience most of the cities of that province. Now if, with F. Corsini[104], we admit the commencement of the Parthian æra to have happened in the 525th year of Rome; the 425th or 426th year of the former and the 950th of the latter of those æra’s, wherein the Parthians undertook the Mesopotamian expedition, will nearly coincide. But it may be proved from a medal of Monneses, described by the [105]Marquis Scipio Maffei, in opposition to [106]Dr. Vaillant, that this prince was not dethroned in the year of the Arsacidæ 423, but had two years afterwards the management and direction of the Parthian affairs: wherefore, notwithstanding what has been advanced to the contrary by that antiquary, he might still have sat one or two years longer upon the Parthian throne. This may likewise be inferred from Dio, who mentions Vologeses as presiding over the Parthians, not in 198, but in 199, about two years after their irruption into Mesopotamia. All which being with proper attention considered, it will appear extremely probable, that the medal I have been endeavouring to explain was coined either in the 425th or 426th year of the Parthian æra, that is, the 197th of CHRIST; that the authority of [107]Arrian, [108]Justin, and [109]Athenæus, on which F. Corsini principally sounds his notion, may be intirely depended upon; and, in fine, that the arguments he makes use of on this occasion, to [110]evince the truth of his scheme, however they may be opposed by F. Frœlich, and the medal before me mutually strengthen and support one another.
6. I must not forget to remark, that F. Corsini thinks, without a proper foundation, that the piece of Monneses published by Dr. Vaillant may be considered either as a Parthian or [111]an Armenian coin. This, I say, he takes, without a proper foundation, to be the case. For the medals of the Armenian kings, such as that he has obliged the learned world with a draught of, and a most excellent dissertation upon, discover a taste far different from that which is exhibited by Dr. Vaillant’s coin. The air of the face, the curls into which the hair is formed, and in fine every thing else visible upon the former, except the symbols on the reverses, bear little resemblance to what is presented to our view by the latter. As for the titles, impressed on these medals, they are far from being of the same kind; the Armenian princes in this particular approaching nearer the successors of Seleucus[112], and contenting themselves with more plain and simple titles than that lofty one affected by Monneses, according to Dr. Vaillant, in common with the other Parthian kings. To which I may add, that my coin sets this point beyond dispute, by the Parthian characters it has so apparently preserved; all the Armenian medals I have hitherto met with, about three or four in number, as well as that of Baron Stosch[113], which F. Corsini has so learnedly explained, having only Greek legends upon them. What therefore he has advanced, on this head, must be considered as not altogether so consonant to truth; especially, as he seems to have offered nothing of any great weight in support of his opinion.
7. Before I dismiss the present subject, I must beg leave to take notice of the Parthian character on the field of my medal, which is not very unlike the Chaldee[114] or Palmyrene _Aleph_, tho’ of something a more complex form. Should this be allowed, that character may be considered as the initial letter of ARSACIA, the name of a city subject to the Parthians, placed by [115]Ptolemy in Media; where, according to [116]Dr. Vaillant, many of the Parthian medals were coined. That city is however believed by some to have been seated on the spot occupied at this time by Casbin, or rather Kazwîn[117], one of the principal towns of the Belâd Al Jebâl, or mountainous part of the Persian Irâk; for a particular account of which place, the curious may have recourse to Golius, and the eastern geographers. As I have already far exceeded the limits proposed to myself, when I began this letter, I shall not now touch upon any other observations relative to the medal before me, which is the only one I have hitherto met with carrying a Greek and a Parthian legend upon it; but only assure you that I am, with the most perfect regard, +SIR,+ Your most obliged and most obedient Servant, John Swinton. Christ-Church Oxon. Nov 29th, 1756. XXIII. _An Account of a Red Coral from the_ East-Indies, _of a very singular Kind: In a letter from Mr._ John Ellis, _F.R.S. to Mr._ Peter Collinson, _F.R.S._
Ideas discussed in this chapter
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.