H. _Modern Entrance over Ruins. This seems to have been formerly such
a Chamber, as is express’d in the Drawing at_ (L)
_A Scale of Feet._]
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._
[Read Mar. 24, 1757.]
Reverend Sir,
AS we know little of the reigns of the latter Parthian kings, and
less still of their coins; an attempt to strike out even the least
new light on either of those heads will not, I persuade myself, prove
unacceptable to the Royal Society. In this persuasion, I do myself the
honour to send you a few conjectures upon another brass Parthian medal,
in my possession, as remarkable, on account of the double legend it
contains, as the former, which I endeavoured a little to illustrate
about a year ago. This medal, which certainly merits the attention of
the curious, is in very good conservation, and approaches near the size
of those of the middle Roman brass. It exhibits the head, or effigies,
of a Parthian king, with a beard, diadem, and hair formed into such
curls as I never yet observed upon any antient coins. Under the
effigies, the Greek letters ΒΑϹΙΛΕωΝ ΜΕΓΑϹ ΜΟ⦙⦙⦙, which demonstrate the
piece to be Parthian, appear; and, on the reverse, a _Victory_, done
something after the Roman manner, tho’ the workmanship is pretty rude,
presents itself to our view, together with a legend in a language and
character at this time unknown. The legend consists of ten complete
elements, placed behind the _Victory_ above-mentioned; besides which
there is one in the field of the medal, being probably the initial
letter of the name of the city where the coin was struck. The metal,
tho’ termed by me brass, discovers something of a composition similar
to that of his Grace the Duke of Devonshire’s medal of Vologeses III.
as described by [68]Sig. Haym. This coin, of which I herewith transmit
you a draught most accurately taken (_See_ TAB. IV. _Fig. 1._), having
not yet, as I apprehend, been published; you will permit me now to
offer a few cursory remarks upon it, drawn up in the shortest and most
concise manner possible.
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.
[Illustration: _Philos. Trans. Vol. L._ TAB. IV. _p. 176_.
_Fig. 1._
_Num. Parth. apud Jeannem Swinton, A. M. Oxoniens. R. S. S._
_Fig. 2. p. 202._
_Scale of feet, 20-1 Inch_ _J. Mynde sc._]
2. That the Greek and unknown legends on this medal are either of the
same or a similar import, will be acknowleged by all versed in this
kind of literature extremely probable. The Greek and Phœnician legends
on the same [74]coins of Tyre and Sidon, as I have, upon examination,
found, and shall hereafter more fully evince, clearly correspond. The
Latin and Punic legends on Juba’s medals, as has been by me formerly
proved[75], very well agree. The sense[76] I have assigned the legend
in unknown characters, exhibited by the reverse of my former Parthian
coin, with, I flatter myself, some appearance of truth, sufficiently
answers to the Greek one preserved by other medals of the same prince.
We may therefore be permitted to suppose, that both the legends handed
down to us by the coin before me related to Monneses, and conveyed
the same, or at least extremely similar, ideas to the Parthians and
the Greeks. Nothing can be more consonant to reason, tho’ we must not
directly assume this as a postulate, than such a supposition.
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._
[Read Mar. 24, 1757.]
Dear Sir,
I Promised you, in my letter of the 7th of February 1754, published
in our Transactions, Vol. xlviii. p. 507. that I would, when I had
an opportunity, endeavour to illustrate the tubular structure of
the common red coral of the Mediterranean sea, and of some of the
keratophyta; which two kinds, tho’ evidently of as different natures as
stone and horn, yet are, from late observation, found to be fashioned,
or raised up into those beautiful forms, by animals of the same class.
This I shall attempt to do, by comparing them with bodies of a similar
kind, but of a less compact texture: for which reason I formerly
referred you, in the above-mentioned letter, to a figure, which I have
given of the herring-bone-coralline with its animals alive in it,
_Phil. Trans._ Vol. xlviii. TAB. XVII. _Fig._ E, F, G, to shew you the
nature of the tubular structure of the keratophyta.
[Illustration: _Philos. Trans. Vol. L._ TAB. III. _p. 189_.
_J. Mynde_
A. _A piece of pithy knobbit and Coral from the Spice Islands in the
East Indies which appears to be form’d by animals of the Polype kind,
contrary to the receiv’d opinion of these bodies being vegetables; the
vermicular tubes, of which it is compos’d, being no more than the cases
or coverings of the bodies of these Insects._
B. _The radiated holes on the yellow mealy surface, through which these
insects extend their arms or claws, as in the common red coral._
CC. _Small Branches almost cover’d by a further addition of tubes, that
have risen all round and increas’d the bulk of the Stem, continuing
themselves along it to extend the ramifications; by this means they
involve the former side branches into their own stem, differing
intirely from the laws of vegetation._
D. _A piece of yᵉ. knobby joints magnified to shew their reticular
texture like that of spongy orange wtʰ tubes._
_d._ _The same in its natural size._
E. _A piece of yᵉ. blood red tubes which is harden’d into a shelly or
stony substance with some appearance of reticulations, taken from yᵉ.
space between yᵉ. knobs._
_e._ _The same in its natural size._