transparency, literally, was made in the ark; "and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above," [literally, "even to the supports shalt thou extend it, from the risings, or, from the elevations;" meaning perhaps, "it shall extend from end to end of the ark, except where intercepted by the finishing posts, at the ends, and by those strong timbers, which running up the sides join others in the roof."] The usual situation of the windows is seen in our print; and being immediately under a projecting roof, such an opening would thereby be defended from the falling rain.

I would further call the attention of the reader, to the trunk like shape of this dwelling; which renders such an enclosure very fit to contain the infant Moses, supposing the lid, as in our own trunks, to be moveable.

Since then, we find in our figure of this house such correspondencies with the properties of the thebet, let us inquire what memorials of its form and construction have been in any other manner preserved to us, and how far they agree with what we have been examining.

It

I must at once take Dionysius, or Bacchus, for the great patriarch Noah; and, without enlarging in proof of it here, must assume that the cista mystica, or sacred allegorical chest, carried in the Dionysiac processions, commemorated the mean of preservation, by which mankind had escaped destruction, when suffering the calamities which accompanied the deluge. will be recollected, that we have supposed this thebet only to float, hovering over the place where it was constructed; to be gradually, and even slowly, comparatively, surrounded by the water, and to be not long lifted up on the face of the flood, which was 22 feet in depth; whose earliest retirings re-settled this floating mansion on its broad basis, and its projecting supports.

No. 2. In a series of pictures, representing ceremonies in honour of Bacchus, in the Antiquities of Herculaneum, vol. ii. p. 135. we have, what so far as I know is the nearest approach to the form of the Noachical ark. A woman is carrying on her shoulder, a square box, having a projecting roof, and at the end of it a door. This door is a very remarkable circumstance; for it plainly makes a house of this receptacle; it cannot be a mere box for ordinary uses, as the difficulty of putting things in, and taking them out, through so narrow an aperture, sufficiently demonstrates: neither is the angular roof, and its considerable projection, analogous to the purposes of a mere box; moreover, as it is carried in a commemorative procession, it is clearly a sacred thebet, or trunk, i.e. that in which Dionysius was preserved. [It has no pillars to characterize it as a votive temple; neither is the doorway proportioned to the entrance of a temple; it rising into the roof.]

To illustrate the nature of these sacred trunks, I shall abstract some remarks from the notes on the volume which has furnished our subject. Oppian,

Cyneg. iv. 253. calls the ark, of fir wood, which had contained the infant Bacchus, which was carried in procession by the sacred choir, λòv άppyτnv, arca ineffabile; "the most venerable ark;" the word chelos is used by Homer in this signification; and both Suidas and Hesychius say, chelos is kibotos: i.e. the ark. Pausanias, lib. vii. says, that Vulcan made a small statue of Bacchus, and gave it to Jupiter, who gave it to Dardanus the Trojan. In the sacking of Troy the portion of Euripilus was an ark, aapvat, wherein was contained this statue; Euripilus took it away; but at his first attempt to look into this ark, to see the statue, he was deprived of his senses and became insane. [Compare 1 Sam. vi. the men of Bethshemesh.] Moreover, the ark was esteemed a symbol appropriate to Bacchus ; and, in his processions, idols, or other mysteries of that deity were enclosed in it. The same among the Egyptians, Clem. Alex. Strom.

V.

Observe further, that the Lxx, in Genesis, translate thebah, "kibotos;" in Exodus they retain the word thebin: whereas Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Theophilus of Antioch, and others, use the word larnax; which is the same name as was given by the Gentiles to the ark of Bacchus. The cista mystica of the Bacchic rites, contained the most direct allusion to the great progenerator of mankind: when it was not the god himself, it was the virile part of him; but, sometimes, a basket of early fruit, or seed corn, was substituted; implying, that Bacchus was he who first taught mankind husbandry, [vide on Dagon, 1 Sam. v. plate;] and that fertility was his very character

and essence.

Theocritus says, Idyll. xxvii. that Pentheus was pulled to pieces by the female Bacchantes, for prying into the sacred things which they took out of the cista to place on the altars; and Catullus says, the rites of the cista were celebrated in the utmost secrecy;

Pars obscura cavis celebrant orgia cistis.

The heathen always carried the cista on the shoulder; and the person so engaged was called Kistophorus, says Suidas, [vide Exod. xxv. 14. and Uzzaн, in Dictionary.] It was the same, or very nearly, with the mystica vannus Iacchi, of Virgil, Geor. i. 166.

Our next figure, No. 3, is from vol. i. of the Antiquities of Herculaneum, p. 67. It is part of an ancient picture, representing Orestes and Pylades brought for the purpose of being sacrificed, to the altar of Diana Taurica; but discovered by their sister Iphigenia, one of her votaries: behind the figure of Iphigenia are two attendants, one holding a sprig, basin, &c. the other doing something to a trunk, which recals to my mind very strongly, the form of the thebet; it is longer than it is broad, and is supported at the corners by strong posts; it has a projecting roof, and this roof is rounded at the top: whereby it agrees precisely with the Arabian house, copied in No. 1. This similarity is increased, accidentally, I suppose,

by an appearance on the side, as if it was covered with plaster; of which a part is peeled off. The cista mystica, or somewhat equivalent, was carried in the ceremonies of Diana; as it was in those of Ceres, and Isis for, in fact, these deities differed in little more than in name; and as being different characters of the same divinity. The reader will observe the close conformity of this trunk, coffer, or ark, to that of the foregoing figure; except in the shape of the roof, and the absence of a door: at least on this side of it.

On the following figures, Nos. 4, 5, 6. it is proper to inform the reader, that the extremely remarkable nature of their type, and the singularity of the legend on some of them, have, ever since their discovery and publication, been considered as justifying strong hesitations respecting their authenticity; nevertheless, since so many as nine medals are known, whose types, though greatly alike, yet differ in some particulars,

it seems difficult to account for their manufacture. However, we shall give up eight out of the nine, three or four being absolutely condemned as spurious, by the best judges, and shall restrict ourselves to that one which is admitted to be a genuine medal, No. 4. It is in the cabinet of the late king of France. It has been admitted by Vaillant, and having been particularly scrutinized by the abbe Barthelemy, at the desire of Dr. Combe, is, by that able antiquary, pronounced authentic. It has on one side the head of Severus, on the other a double history; representing, first, two figures enclosed in an ark, or chest; which has very strong posts at the corners, and equally strong beams where the side joins the roof: the roof moreover is angular, like that of No. 2. and it further resembles that number, by the place of its door; which is not at the side, whereon are letters; but must be at the front, where the same two figures which we see in the ark, are represented as come out, and going away from their late residence. Double histories are common on medals. I say, the situation of these figures implies the situation of the door; and that agrees with our former instance; so that we have in this medal a commemoration of an escape from the dangers of water, by a floating vessel. The water The water appears clearly enough in Nos. 5, 6. Our present business being only with the form of this ark, and to shew its relation, in point of construction, to an ordinary house, we might be dispensed with from remarking the birds, one of which stands on the roof of this ark; the other is flying toward it, carrying in its feet a sprig, which I conceive to be an olive sprig: whether these particulars can be, without difficulty, referred to the history of Deucalion and Pyrrha, as usually understood, I cannot help strongly doubting. Moreover, the abbé Barthelemy informs us, that the letters on the ark are, "the letter N, followed by two or three others, of which there remain only the slightest traces; or, to speak more accurately,

there is nothing but the contour of the second letter to be distinguished, which, according to different lights, appears sometimes an , O, sometimes an E." Had the forger of the non-genuine medals met with a true one, which, having these letters well preserved, he has been enabled to copy? It is certain, that he only wanted the E to appear as the third letter, to be justified in his legend; for "the first letter is N," that seems to be clear; and "there are traces of two or three others;" say of two others; one of which "in some lights appears to be 0;" [but an E would do as well.] This O, then, is the second letter of the inscription. The Abbé admits traces of a third letter; and if any respect be due to the forged medals, if the forger had any prototype before him, which by the rarity, and indeed singularity, of the type, induced him to imitate it, the only reason for imitation, if any one of the eight repudiated instances had such a prototype, then the third letter was E. It is unwise to depend too strongly on a single evidence; but we may without imputation submit, 1st, that the patriarch was known in Grecian antiquity by the name Noe; 2dly, we may partly explain how it comes to pass, that all these medals, including the genuine one, purport to be struck at Apamea.

Philo Judeus says, De Prem. vol. ii. "The Grecians call that person Deucalion, but the Chaldeans style him NOE Noe, in whose time happened the great eruption of waters." Noe is mentioned several times in the Orphic hymns; and if there were any traces of his name among the eastern Greeks, as Naus, DaNaus, Nous, Minous, &c. which Mr. Bryant has clearly proved, then, there is no difficulty in admitting, that at Apamea he was called Noe, Noeh, Noue, or Nous, either of which modes of spelling his name would justify our medal.

That these medals should be referred to Apamea, will not seem wonderful when we recollect, what we have already stated, that the LXX translate thebah, "kibotos;" the apostles do the same, Heb. xi. 7 ; 1 Pet. iii. 20. Now there was a city named Kibotos, in Phrygia, on the river Marsyas; this city was afterward named Apamea, says Strabo, lib. xii. and there is a medal of Ádrian extant, with the inscription of both names to this city, Apameon Kibotos, on the river Marsyas, Patin, Num. p. 413. Kibotus is not a Greek term; but apparently of Oriental origin; it may be, therefore, that a colony from the East settled here, or, that this town valued itself on preserving correctly the memorials of Kibotos, from whence it took its name: and this the rather, as kibotus signifies an ark, or repository, coffer, for things of value. In a kibotos were carried the sacred emblems, says Pausanias, lib. x. so that it was similar to the nature and use of the cista mystica of Dionysius, and Dionysius we have considered as Noah, to whom also this kibotos undoubtedly refers. This proves, without further enlargement, the propri

ety of such a subject as the present on the medals of Apamea; and moreover, it reduces those who refer this type to the deluge of Deucalion, to prove that the title Kibotos was, or could be, appropriated to Apamea, on account of that particular event, or any commemoration of it peculiar to that city.

The reader will now consider the evidences, that the ark of Noah was no other than a large house, whose timbers, instead of going into the ground, whereby they would have been held, were detached from it, so that when it was required to float, the waters might easily "lift up the ark."

We conclude by this further argument, that if the ark had been a keeled vessel, it would from its magnitude have drawn so much water, that it could hardly have floated; for, as the mountains where it was built, were covered only 22 feet deep, we can hardly allow less for its draught of water; we know that many capital ships draw much more; but if the bottom was flat, then, if it drew ten or twelve feet of water, there would still be water below its bottom for it to float in. This flatness of its bottom is in perfect coincidence to the representations of our figures. How greatly this How greatly this flat bottom would ease the construction of this machine, is best understood by those who have examined the several courses of lines, and their variations, which are employed in building a keeled vessel of magnitude.

Supposing we have said enough on the real shape and form of the ark, we proceed to suggest, that the form attributed to the cista mystica, the memorial of the ark, is not always that house like [temple like, if the reader pleases: for I consider the ancient temples as memoranda of this subject,] appearance, which we have selected: for, as ordinary baskets, of any shape, would answer the purpose, so they were usually employed; but then, observe how nearly basket work represented the construction of the ark, by its upright stems, and its crossing withes. Though I cannot adopt Dr. Geddes's notion, that the ark itself was wicker work, yet wicker work was certainly employed in composing those portable resemblances of it, which were designed to perpetuate its history. I have therefore given a subject, or two, in which we see the serpent, the good demon, entering the ark, or coming out of it: they denote pretty clearly, what was the import of this sacred utensil. Nos. 7, 8.

It is possible, the reader may not at first perceive the propriety of attaching so great importance to the history of Noah's deliverance, and its commemoration, as by our not unlaborious investigations we have appeared to do; but, we presume, a little reflection will justify our conduct; for, it has been long the outcry of a certain class of reasoners against revelation, "Bring us facts which all the world agree in facts admitted, established by unbiassed evidence," &c. If, in answer to this, we offer to prove that the Christian dispensation is from above; we are reminded, "how

few of mankind receive it: his own nation deny the subject of it: heathen lands refuse him." If we advert to Moses, "What! a leader of a pitiful horde of leprous slaves! at most, a legislator acknowledged by a single nation! and that a stupid nation too." Well then, to prove the assertion, that Deity has condescended to make known its intentions to man, we appeal to the instance of Noah. Was the deluge an actual occurrence? All mankind bear witness to it. Wherever tradition has been consulted, wherever written records are preserved, wherever commemcrative ordinances have obtained, what has been their subject? the deluge: deliverance from destruction by a flood: the savage and the sage agree in this: North and South, East and West, admit that their great ancestor was in danger by waters, but was saved from their power: and how saved? by personal exertion? by swimming? No: by concealment in the highest mountains? No: but by a large floating edifice of his own construction; his own construction, for this particular purpose. But this labour was long: this was not the work of a day; he must have foreknown this event a considerable time previous to its actual occurrence. Whence had he this foreknowledge? did the earth inform him, that at twenty, thirty, forty years distance, it would disgorge a flood? Surely not. Did the stars announce that they would dissolve the terrestrial atmosphere in terrific rains? Surely not. Whence then had Noah his foreknowledge? Did he begin to build when the first showers descended? that was too late. Had he been used to rains formerly, why think them now of importance? Had he never seen rain before, what could induce him to provide against it? why this year more than last year; why last year more than the year before? These inquiries are direct: we cannot flinch from the fact: erase it from the Mosaic records; still it is recorded in Greece, in Egypt, in India; it is registered in the very sacra of the pagan world, and is annually renewed by imitation, where the liberty of opinion is not fettered by the "prejudices" of Hebrew institutions, or by the "sophisticated" inventions of Christianity. Go, infidel, turn to the right hand, or to the left hand; take your choice of difficulties: either disparage all mankind as fools, as willing dupes to superstitious commemoration, as leagued throughout the world to delude themselves in order to oppose you, your wisdom, your just thinking, your love of truth, your unbiassed integrity; or allow that this fact, at least, this one fact, has testimony sufficient to establish it: but remember, that if it be established, it implies a communication from God to man. Who could inform Noah? Answer this question honestly: who could inform Noah? Why did not Noah provide against fire? against earthquakes? against explosions? Why against a deluge? why against water? Away with subterfuge; say frankly, "This is the dictation of Deity;" say, "Only HE who made

the world could predict the time, the means, the causes of this devastation; only He could excite the hope of restoration, or direct to the method of deliverance." Use your own language: but permit a humble believer to adopt language already recorded: “By faith, Noah, being warned of God, of things never seen as yet, in pious fear, prepared the ark, kibotos, to the saving of his family, by which he condemned the world." May a similar condemnation never rest on us, who must at least admit the truth of one text in the Bible; or be condemned by the united voice of all mankind, and by the testimony of the earth, the shattered, the disordered earth itself!!

We make no apology for introducing on our Plate a couple of subjects, which at first sight may be thought not to belong to our present discussion; Nos. 9, 10. they are the delivery of the Corinthian deity, Palemon, from danger by water [a child preserved by a cetus,] but, to apply them to our discourse, observe, that Palemon was the Neptune of Corinth; 2dly, that Hesychius says, Palamon was Hercules; 3dly, that (Hercules and) Palemon was Melicerta; i.e. as Eusebius says, Prep. lib. i. Melec Cartha, "the king of the city," Tyre: the same consequently with Moloch: for which vide our thoughts on Baal and Moloch, Plate. This then is the Tyrian, masculine, deity, the same with Dag-on, or Seide-un, who is typified by a youth coming out of a fish, analogous to this child preserved by a cetus. We had formerly, vide FRAGMENT, No. 215, occasion to prove, that this fish, this boy loving fish, the dolphin, was really a ship, or boat; for no living fish would suffer a mast and bowsprit to be run into his back; and the same we observe of this fish, that it must be allegorical; because, a pine-tree well marked and distinguished, grows out of it. What can this mean? It means, 1st, that the fish was not living, but a construction of wood; which wood, 2dly, was the pine. Now, we beg the reader to turn to our observations in the EXPOSITORY INDEX on Gen. vi. 14. where he will see, that we have considered the Hebrew word, gopher, of which the sacred historian says the ark was constructed, as denoting the pine: and this, as forming the uprights, or quarterings, of which Noah's ark was composed. Moreover, lest the memory of what kind of wood this was should decay, a crown of pine branches was the reward of the victor in the

Isthmian games, celebrated in honour of Neptune, i.e. Palæmon. Pines also were planted in the Stadium, and around his temples. [Vide the story of Semiramis hid in the pine-tree, FRAGMENT, No. 271.] This subject then corroborates our ideas on the subject of the ark of Noah. But, in the next number on our Plate, we have the same representation, with a very material addition; no less than the very ark itself, on which reposes the fish with the pine-tree issuing from its back, and the child sleeping on it in full security. Of this ark, only the square front face is seen; but this has a kind of foot, at the bottom of each quartering, whereon it rests, and is divided into upper and lower stories, by a cross beam. Is not this remarkably analogous to our description of the Noachical preserver? Is it not almost strictly coincident? It is true, the roof is flat, for were it angular, it would not correspond with the situation of the dolphin. But, without pushing this argument further, it results, that the fish is a symbol of the preserving ark, in construction of which the pine was the wood understood to be employed. This is not all: we said, [vide 1 Sam. v. Plate,] on the deity Dagon, the same as Palamos, q. PALE, i.e. old, M'AUN, the ancient AUN, a very expressive name; that when the symbolical fish was employed, we were not to expect a representation of the ark also; yet, in this very medal, we have both ark and fish; contrary, most certainly, to every rule of allegory, yet not the less applicable to our illustration of the history: for, if we combine these ideas, the fish, the ark, the pinetree, and the child, what is it, but a deliverance from extreme danger by waters; nay, even a renewal of life, by means of a floating preserver? And what else is our explanation of Dagon?

No. 11. Venus, i.e. the prolific power, receiving an infant from a dolphin, which has preserved it from the waters. See the very same idea in the plate of Dagon, No. 3.

No. 12. A square chest, or ark, kibotos, with the pine-tree issuing from it, as before from the fish ; proving, that the fish and the ark are of the same character, and may freely be substituted one for the other.

These medals are all from Vaillant's Coins of the Colonies.

THE attention and curiosity of the public have lately been strongly excited by an article which connects very intimately with part of the historical records preserved in Holy Scripture; I mean those

bricks found on the spot where we have reason to suppose the tower of Babel, or at least some part of ancient Babylon, formerly stood. Several of these bricks have been brought to London, by order and