and the stories there pictured and carved." Then follow the copied inscriptions, and an account of them, said to be taken at Nocturestand, and Chahelminar, in Persia, November, 1667.

"Nos. 1, 2. These two characters are engraven on the breasts of two horses, cut out of the mountain of black marble, at Nocturestand, distant a league from Chahelminar, or the ancient Persepolis; one whereof is said to be Alexander's, the other Rustram's, [a famous hero supposed to have lived about the time of Cambyses.] No. 1. This character has some similitude with the ancient Hebrew; but the Persians would have it their own, though they understand not a letter." So far Mr. Flower. No. 2. is a Greek inscription, no doubt the same as the upper one in Persian characters; it should be read thus, the smaller letters supplying the deficiencies, which are occasioned in the original sculpture, some by the allcorroding hand of time, others by the ignorance, or inadvertence of the sculptor.

ΤΟ ΠΡΟΤΟ[με] [ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΝ ΜΑΕΛΑΧΝΟΥ
ΘΕΟΥ ΑρΖΑκου βαCIA ε]ΩΣ BAΣΙΛΕΩΝ
ΑΡΙΑΝΩΝ ΘΕΩΝΤΙδ ΟΥ
ΘΕΟΠΑΠΑΓΟΥ ΒΑΛΕΩΣ

"The image of the countenance of the deity Malach: erected by Arsaces, king of kings; the Arrian, son of Theontius, son of Theopapus, king." It is evident that this Greek is the production of a Parthian, or a foreigner from the Greek language; as well by its omissions of letters, as by its redundancies. It is not, however, worse than what we meet with elsewhere of Arabian composition.

We learn from it, 1st, that this figure represents the god Moloch. 2dly, That it was executed by order of Arsaces, no doubt the first of that name; and no doubt, also, by artists who had received somewhat of Grecian instruction, and a tincture of Grecian art. 3dly, It informs us of the country and family of Arsaces; which hitherto has been variously reported. Arsaces, say some writers, was of the family of the Achæmenidæ, the royal family of Persia; others say he was a Parthian. Strabo says he was king of the Dahæ; Georgius Syncellus affirms, that he was a nobleman of Bactria. Now these reports are partly true, partly erroneous: he was, as appears by our inscription, a noble, because he was of royal descent, being a grandson of king Theopapus. He might be also a king [or perhaps a governor, a satrap] as being of royal birth; but whether he exercised the office of royalty over a kingdom may be doubted. As to his native province, I suppose it was Aria, or Ariana, which was a very extensive province of Persia, bounded by the Indus on the east, by the Great Sea on the south, by Parapamisus north, and by the limits of Media, &c. west. This province lying remote, and being so extensive, was a proper situation for the

VOL. IV.

44

commencement of a revolt. But of this province he might be governor; whether native or not: and therefore sirnamed "the Arrian." The revolt of Arsaces was occasioned by the ill usage his brother Tiridates received from Agathocles regent of Persia, &c. in the absence of the king, Antiochus. I suppose, that Tiridates was the elder brother of Arsaces. We read also, that at the time of this revolt of Arsaces in Parthia, Theodotus revolted in Bactria. Is this Theodotus the same as the Theontius of our inscription? If so, and if Theodotus was the father of Arsaces, we see how they might act in concert. This is not certain; yet as Theodotus signifies "God's gift," and Theontius signifies "God's honour," the import of the names, which are evidently translations from the native language into the Greek, might be derived from the same Parthian title or appellation. It is true, we do not find the word papus used in an elegant application among classic Greek writers; but we have the name of Philopapus, the Syrian, on a monument at Athens; and Theopapus seems to be perfectly synonymous with the Hebrew Abiel, "God my father;" being compounded of Theos God, and papas

father.

The second inscription we are told "is written entire on Rustram's horse." Now this inscription is clearly, ΤΟ ΠΡΟΤΟ[με] ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΝ Β[ε]LOC ΘΕΟΥ "The image of the countenance of the god Belus."

This image being that of Belus, strengthens the supposition that his companion is the god Moloch, those two deities being represented together: and thus we have in this sculpture the two principal deities of the country.

It is impossible to determine decisively whether these inscriptions were correctly copied by Mr. Flower; if they were, the use of D for B in Belus, and the use of the Roman L instead of the Greek A in the same word, deserves notice; as does the use of Y for II, of C for E, and for X, &c.

There is no doubt but the Parthian inscription contains the same information as the Greek: I have not however been able to satisfy myself with any lection of it: yet I think the first word of No. 1. is M LIC; and that the name Arsaces is written ARDSHOKTJ. I take them to be incorrectly copied from the marbles. A question remains, whether these figures are the work of the age to which their inscription refers? It is certain they were extant before their inscriptions were put upon them; but they might be extant long before, yet not inscribed, till circumstances made it necessary, in the time of Arsaces. If they are works of Arsaces, do they copy accurately former, ancient, representations? Have we any figures of Belus and Moloch on horseback, besides these? They are of the natural size of life. The tradition of the place

refers them to Alexander and Darius. Is Arbaces the Rustram of the tradition? These ideas seem coincident with their being the work of Arsaces: but what could induce him thus to ornament sepulchres near Persepolis, if Chihelminar be Persepolis, and what could be the state of this city, palace, &c. at the time of forming this monument?

Upon the whole, this discovery of the author of these works, leads to a suspicion whether he might not also be author of those other ornamental figures, still remaining at Persepolis, whose number amounts to many thousands, and which must have employed the labours of years; probably much beyond the reign of Arsaces. Or, did Alexander not burn and destroy the whole palace of Persepolis? I must own, I have often wondered at this action attributed to him: drunk as he was, why fire the whole? how could he burn those parts constructed of stone? Could he so far consume this edifice, as that it might not be repaired, recovered, and restored to its pristine dignity, by some succeeding prince, Arsaces, or any other? Is it unlikely that this was an ancient seat of the Persian monarchs, the palace of which was built perhaps by Cyrus, partially destroyed by Alexander, restored by Arsaces; but at length deserted, through the necessity of events, and gradually mouldered to its present condition by time and accidents? We desire materials for our information in answering these questions; but, if they have an air of probability, that is all the proposer of them wishes, at present.

We shall proceed at once to explain our Plate. Nos. 1, 2, 3. are delineations of the figures referred to in the foregoing letter; copied from Le Bruyn's Travels, vol. ii. p. 32.

No. 1. is No. 170 of Le Bruyn, and is, I suppose, the subject of Mr. Flower's remarks, because he mentions two horses, and two heroes, Alexander and Rustram. It is impossible to determine by Mr. Flower's words, on which of the two horses either of the inscriptions is cut; all we learn is, that one inscription is cut on one horse, the other inscription on the other. In this dilemma, presuming that the cap, as usual in the East, distinguishes the personage, I take the figure on the right to be the deity Moloch; and I support this presumption by observing, that he holds in his hand a club, which is the same weapon as Moloch holds in the Plate to the FRAGMENT referred to; also, that the cap of the other figure is that worn by the Baal of the other subjects. These circumstances determine me to refer the first inscription describing the deity Moloch to the figure on the right.

The figure represents the god Moloch as an elderly man, with a long beard; wearing a round cap, with tall feathers in it; holding in his left hand a club, in his right hand holding a ring, in conjunction with another figure, who is also on horseback. The horses

of both these figures are bridled, and from the saddle of each hangs an ornament, being a chain, with a rose tassel to it. The second figure in this subject has a raised conical cap on his head; with his right hand he grasps the ring; and he is attended by a servant, who holds over him an ensign of dignity common at Persepolis. This figure I take to be that called Rustram, and therefore suppose, that to this figure we may refer the second inscription, which shows him to be the deity Belus.

No. 2. Is a figure on horseback, which I take to be the same deity as the second figure of Nos. 1. and 3. He holds in his left hand a sword; with his right hand he is raising a person who has been doing him homage; as a second person in a supplicating posture is now doing. The deity on horseback has a tall conical cap on his head, embellished with three leaves at the bottom: on his thigh, under his drapery, is a somewhat, perhaps a bow case: his horse is handsomely bridled; and behind stands a servant, whose figure is almost obliterated. Traces of an inscription are evident on the rock.

It is inquired in the letter, whether we have any figures of Belus and Moloch on horseback, besides these? to which I answer, by referring to Vaillant's Medals of the Colonies, for two, which that eminent medalist knew not what to make of. The first is, p. 111. ranked by him as uncertain: as he was unable to ascribe it to any particular town: the second is, p. 146. and is ascribed by him to Olba. The inscription of both is, COL. IVL. AUG. OLBABEN. which he reads, Colonia Julia Augusta Olbabenorum. This we have given below in No. 4. Olba was a city in Pamphylia, in this medal called a colony; by Strabo, μɛya Épura, "of great strength," or well fortified μεγα έρυμα, [magna munitio: we have the same ascription given to Tyre, Josh. xix. 29. "the strong city, Tyre:" urbem munitissimum.] The names of Julius and Augustus show by whom it was favoured; though without this testimony we should not have known that Julius had thus privileged it. Vaillant also says, this coin is among the most rare and most elegant. The head is Gordian. On the reverse of another medal of the same town is Bacchus. This figure is Deus Lunus on horseback; and I think it clear from the figure and ornaments of the cap on his head, that this is the same deity as appears on these rocks at Persepolis. If the medalist had not inserted the crescent, we could not have distinguished him; but that proves him to be of Eastern origin, and identifies him with the Persian deity.

No. 3. Is Baal and Moloch under another form: Baal indeed is much the same in appearance; having a strong beard, his hair flowing on his shoulders, a conical cap on his head; in his right hand he grasps a ring, in his left a [roll of a book, perhaps, or short staff: whatever it is, he holds apparently the

same thing, in the plate to FRAGMENT, No. 108.] Behind him is an attendant, having a conical cap, and a book, perhaps, in each hand. The other figure is that of a woman; having on her head a cap, with three tiers of ornaments; her hair flowing over her shoulders, a necklace round her neck: a girdle round her waist. She grasps the ring with her right hand. This is the deity Moloch, in a female form; and though attired in a less warlike manner, yet is precisely the same as we saw her in MISCELLANIES, Plate II. No. 11. FRAGMENT, No. 282, [vide Nos. 6, 7, 8.] where we have Baal and Moloch in the character of warriors; and where, though a woman, she retains her reference to the male sex, by displaying a beard. In fact, this mixture of sexes in Moloch, is the origin of all the hermaphrodites, hermathenas, bearded-fortunes, &c. in heathen mythology, and ancient art. It is the origin of all that change of dresses by the sexes, in order to change the sex itself, were it possible, at the feast of Deus Lunus, or Dea Luna, vide Moon, in Dictionary, which is prohibited so early as Moses, Deut. xxii. 5. "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment." If the reader will consult the Hebrew of this passage, he will find that the woman is prohibited by a phraseology stronger than appears in our translation, from wearing the distinctions of the male sex; among which, a beard is by appointment of nature, "what pertaineth to a man. The subject is too long and too recondite for this place: as is the question, what is the action, and reference of these figures? Yet by way of showing, rather than dissipating, its obscurity, I shall hint, that the Noachic family was early divided into two parties; one called "of the sun," the other called, "of the moon." These two parties boasted of their divinity, each against the other; and to prove the superiority they vaunted, each fought for its deity; but, after their disposition for fighting was satisfied, they were reconciled, at least, till the next occasion of warfare. My notion is, that in No. 1. we see Baal and Moloch reconciled, or united; [the same in No. 3. though here Moloch be a woman] and this is signified, by their mutually holding a ring, as the symbol of one-ness, unity, omonoia. [The same idea, precisely, I gather from our Plate of Baal and Moloch, FRAGMENT, No. 107. but their arms being broken off, it is impossible to say whether these figures ever held a ring their action is reciprocally that of concord.] Observe, that in these sculptures Baal has an attendant; Moloch has not; from whence I gather that Baal was the deity most favoured in this country: though generally, I suppose, they were honoured together; whether in conjunction, or in different parts of the same temple; or in different temples adjacent to each other.

No. 5. By way of illustrating the action of Baal No.

2. I have given a medal of Abgarus, king of Edessa, in which he is graciously extending his hand toward his subjects. The cap on his head, and his general appearance shows, that the artists of antiquity delineated their kings as representatives of deity which indeed was their character in the East; and undoubtedly, their early kings became their deities in later ages. This very deity Baal, had been a sovereign of the country, anciently.

No. 6. Is a coin of Parthia, in which we have the king's head, wearing almost precisely such a cap as the Baal of No. 2. which renders it remarkable. The reverse is the two deities Baal and Moloch, armed, on each side of an altar: but I am not sure that we distinguish the sexes.

No. 7. Is Baal and Moloch, also, as is manifest by the insignia of the star and the crescent. I think they are of different sexes.

No. 8. The same deities, armed; in this medal I think the sexes are meant to be distinguished; but Moloch has the beard of a man, together with the breasts of a woman.

No. 9. The figure of Venus, from the Indian zodiac: she holds as a distinctive characteristic, a large ring, which seems to be precisely the same as that held by the figures in Nos. 1, 3. and indeed her resemblance to the female figure of No. 3. is by means of this ring very striking their similarity is further illustrated in the following remarks.

No. 10. The first inscription in Persepolitan, and Greek letters; copied from the Philosophical Transactions.

No. 11. The second inscription, from the same authority.

When considering the subject of Succoth Benoth, in FRAGMENT, No. 213, we observed, that the word benos on a medal of Hierapolis, had puzzled Vaillant: this however we referred, ultimately, to the goddess Venus: and I cannot help querying, whether the inscription, Olbaben. on the medal No. 4. should not be read Olba-benos, as if benos, or Venus, was worshipped at Olba, and as if this Deus Lunus was Venus. The crescent leads us to Moloch; Moloch is we see represented as a woman; and if as a woman, why not Venus, the goddess of love and beauty? Let us see how this will affect a passage or two of Scripture.

Amos v. 26. Israel when in the wilderness set up the temporary residences of your Moloch, and of that Chiun [Chiven] you set up your images; and the star of your divinities which ye instituted to yourselves. This star appears on our medals, and marks the sun. Supposing the crescent to be Chiun, or Moloch, it will denote the queen of heaven; or, "the productive powers feminine," as Mr. Parkhurst renders Succoth Benoth. Now that the worship of the Midianite women, the seducers, and so of Israel, the seduced, was paid to this goddess, appears in the open