The researches of Schliemann and Di Cesnola have likewise served to throw some fresh light on those personal ornaments of which we read in the sacred writings-bracelets, rings, necklaces, anklets, head-tires, crescents, nose-jewels, amulets, gems, and other articles, for the profuse wearing of which the prophet Isaiah sternly rebukes the Jewish women (iii. 17-23). Of each and all of these the tombs of Greece and Cyprus have furnished admirable specimens, manufactured, too, in all probability, by the very artists and goldsmiths who supplied the maids and matrons of Israel. Bangles, bracelets, chatelaines, and even crosses were in those early days almost as fashionable as they are now in Constantinople harîm or London drawing-room.

I have, I fear, more than exhausted my space, and yet I have only just been able to touch the borders of an interesting and almost inexhaustible subject. The study of it has helped me at least to understand more fully many portions of Holy Scripture. It has given me a clearer conception than I might otherwise have had of the splendour, the artistic finish, and the wondrous richness in decoration and furniture of that Temple which Solomon and a devoted people reared up and dedicated to the service of the Living God. All the resources of his own kingdom, all the wealth he could gather from foreign nations, all the skill and talent he could obtain from the most celebrated architects and most accomplished artists. then in the world were, with surpassing zeal and energy, concentrated in the grand effort to erect a house in some measure worthy of the JEHOVAH GOD of Israel. King David had said:"The house that is to be builded for the Lord must be exceeding magnifical, of fame and of glory throughout all countries" (1 Chron. xxii. 5). His promise and most sanguine anticipations were fulfilled in the Temple of Solomon.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. D. Howard, V. Pres. Chem. Soc.).—I have `now to ask you to pass a vote of thanks to Mr. Cadman Jones for having read this paper in the absence of the author, Dr. Porter, who is obliged to be present at Queen's College, Belfast, of which he is president. It is a very interesting paper, and it has added to our pleasure to hear it so admirably read. We shall now be glad to hear any remarks which those present may desire to make. The subject is one which, as the writer of the paper says, opens up a vast sphere of inquiry. The interchange of ideas in early times on the subject of architecture and the true history of the artistic and technical knowledge displayed in the very early days here referred to are matters of peculiar interest. We are apt to suppose that the Greeks

t

invented almost everything that is excellent in the shape of artistic and architectural productions; whereas it really appears that they were among the most successful of borrowers. We have been accustomed to suppose that the alphabet associated with his name was the invention of Cadmus; but we now learn that it was only an adaptation of the older Phœnician, Egyptian, and other forms, the Phoenicians being successful borrowers from Egypt. Whether their marvellous series of structures were, in the early forms of art, invented by the Egyptians, or whether they only borrowed them from others, is at present a mystery. Mr. Trelawny Saunders being present, may I ask him to open the discussion?

Mr. TRELAWNY SAUNDERS.—I feel somewhat taken aback at being called upon to commence this discussion, as I think it would have been more becoming in me to have taken a humbler share in to-night's proceedings. I am sure we must all deeply regret the absence of Dr. Porter on this occasion. The mere sight of that man would have been a matter of interest in itself. He is one who has contributed much to our knowledge, especially of the regions east of the Jordan, and of the Hauran and the Lebanon; and he has also, from his profound knowledge of the Holy Land, been chosen as the latest editor of Murray's Handbook of Palestine. We regret not only his absence to-night, but also the distressing political circumstances that prevent his being here. I naturally feel some diffidence in taking up a subject that has been opened—and only opened-by so able a master; because I cannot doubt that, had more time been afforded him, he would probably have expanded his lecture in the direction in which it will probably be led during this discussion. The paper, upon the whole, leads us to look upon the Phœnicians as if they were almost the prime movers in the civilisation of the world. Now, for my part, although whatever I may think about the matter is of little importance,-I cannot help saying that this is not the view entertained by the greatest authorities among us. I may cite the opinion expressed in all sorts of ways by one whose name will certainly carry with it great, if not the greatest, weight,-I allude to Sir Henry Rawlinson, who says, in speaking of Babylonia, the Land of Shinar, that part of the earth's surface to which our attention is first directed after the Flood, that it is to Babylonia we must look for the real cradle of early civilisation. Those who have gone most deeply into the question of Egypt, which was at one time regarded from this point of view, have come to the conclusion, or at all events are drifting in the direction of such a conclusion, that Egypt derived her theology and religion, and her forms and ceremonies, from Assyria; and, if I were disposed to move in any direction away from Assyria in regard to this point, it would certainly not be either westward or southward, but eastward. We have had great light thrown on all this class of subjects of late years by the Sacred Books of the East being translated and made accessible to those who have unfortunately limited their studies to the English language, and in that volume of those sacred books which relates to the Zoroastrian writings-the Zend-Avesta-there is a remarkable list of

the countries through which the migrations of man proceeded, prominence being given, in the first place, to the country eastward of the Land of Shinar. I think we may be the more inclined to look eastward, from the circumstance that the Bible itself, in speaking of the Land of Shinar, tells us that the people who came to occupy it came from the east. There are various points in the history of primitive peoples that tend in one direction. The early books of the Hindoos, which are among the oldest in the world, say that the people who settled in the country between the Sutlej and the Jumna came from the north-west. Here we have a very specific and distinct bearing, as distinct as the one relating to the Land of Shinar; and in the earliest of the Chinese books we are told that the people with whom we become acquainted for the first time on the banks of the Yellow River came from the west. Now, it is at least an understood matter that we should mark off on the globe these several bearings and see where they meet. It so happens that they meet exactly in that region pointed out by the Zend-Avesta as the first nest of mankind, from which man was driven by the snows. It is the Arianem Vaejo of the Vendidad, as distinguished from the Ariana of the present day. The Arianem Vaejo, or ancient Ariana, is the land of the Pamir which lies at the source of the Oxus, and where, at the present moment, the great races which divide the ancient world find their meeting-place. The Turanian and the Mongol, the Turk, the Hindoo, and the Iranian-all these people meet just at that great mountain-knot. But I find I am wandering off—as one finds it very difficult to refrain from doing when led away by so tempting a text as this. I will, therefore, endeavour to confine myself, as far as possible, to the remarks called for by this paper. We cannot fail to see that in tracing the origin of art and architecture we are, in fact, also tracing the origin of religion. The author of the paper says: "It is worthy of note that this ancient site" speaking of Baal-bek—“ bears. the name to this day of the Phœnician sungod, Baal. Baal-bek signifies 'City of Baal.'" Now, what does "Baal" signify? This, we are told a little further on, in page 7, signifies "Lord" or "Master," and we have to distinguish between "Baal" and "Bel"; and, although the latter word is frequently confused with the Assyrian deities, it signifies "to confound," and is identified with Kush, whose name is identical with chaos," the father of Nimrod, who took a leading part in that confusion-that permanent and primitive confusion—the confusion of tongues, so that he may well be called "the confounder." Now, although Dr. Porter ascribes the plan of Solomon's Temple to the Phoenicians, nevertheless, when he seeks for examples with which he may compare the famous pillars, Jachin and Boaz, at the entrance to King Solomon's Temple, he draws the comparison, not with anything in Phoenicia, but with the pillars of the famous Tuins of Persepolis, on the borders of Assyro-Babylonia. It is remarkable that no reference is made in this paper to the labours of a very distinguished man who has only recently gone to his account Mr. James Fergusson. Mr. Fergusson drew a plan of Solomon's Temple, and he distinctly looks for the

primitive origin of the design to Assyria. The very word Cadmus, as is well known, has been referred to the East. It appears to me-in fact, I feel sure —that the great obstacle in the investigation of these ancient questions lies in the circumstance that we have to take the names from the Roman and Greek authorities, who were not content with the names as they found them, but who greatly complicated them by reducing them to forms appropriate to their own languages; so that, before we can really understand an Eastern or Oriental name found in Greek or Roman forms, we must first reduce it to its original form. There is little doubt that Cadmus really means Kedem—that is, the East. I may observe here that Dr. Porter differs from Mr. Ferguson with regard to the position of the great pillars, Jachin and Boaz, in King Solomon's Temple. Dr. Porter thinks they stood outside the porch, independently, whereas Mr. Fergusson made them the outer pillars of the porch itself. Another remark I should like to make is with reference to the great Brazen Sea or cistern, which was ten cubits in diameter, or not less than 17 ft. The Cup is a prominent feature in the religious mysteries of Assyria and of the East generally, and the nearer you approach Assyria the nearer do you approach the dominating religious influence which that country exercised over surrounding peoples. This cistern was of large dimensions; but there was another cistern of perhaps greater dimensions—the cistern of Semiramis-referred to by Pliny; and these cisterns are associated with the greatest mysteries of the religious systems of the East.* I believe they were connected with the mystery of regeneration—the mystery of baptism-the mystery of the new birth--the washing away of sin— and that this was the meaning of the great cistern which occupied so prominent a place in the temples of the Jews and in those of Babylonia. The allusion in the paper to a purely spiritual faith on the part of the Jews is, I think, scarcely supported by what the Bible tells us about that people. We are there told that the Jews were offered a purely spiritual faith, but they resolutely objected to it. I must not attempt to give you my interpretation of the passages in the Bible which I believe to reveal the origin of religion, nor must I attempt to take you through that book and show you how completely it unfolds very important steps in the degradations that have taken place in the history of religion from the time when Noah was in direct communion with God; when Abraham, going out of the land degraded by the religion set up by Nimrod, established no temple and no system of ministry in the land whither he went, but was brought again, like Noah, into direct communication with the representatives of the Almighty at the door of his With the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob this condition of

tent.

* The use of the Laver in the Mosaic ritual is described in Exodus 18-21; xl. 30, 31. The figurative meaning of a cup in the Bible is denoted by Cruden in the complete editions of his Concordance. The symbolical significance of the Cup in the Chaldean, Greek, and Roman mysteries is elucidated by Hislop in his Two Babylons, 5th edition, pp. 77, 78, also pp. 7-10.

things terminated through the fickleness of Jacob, who gave up the land promised by his fathers for the material food which Egypt offered him, although that offer led him to abandon the substantial enjoyment of the soil he had held for three generations. I am sadly tempted to go on with this view of the subject, but I must proceed no further. I think, however we ought to understand that the Jews and the Phoenicians certainly belonged to different families of the human race. The Phoenicians, according to a variety of evidence—the early Christian Fathers among others-distinctly called themselves Canaanites, and they were Canaanites. Therefore they were not Shemites. There is a question as to Tarshish which I should like to touch upon; but I have taken up a good deal of time, and the thing I would next deal with is the name and meaning of Astarte. [In the discussion I mentioned only one meaning of Astarte, but it will be more satisfactory to refer the reader for a fuller notice to Hislop's Two Babylons, Appendix, Note J, pp. 407-501. Partridge: London, 1873.] As to Phoenicia, I think we can speak of that country as the connecting link between Palestine and Greece, or between the East and West generally. I am not disposed to attribute to the Phoenicians any higher function than that of commerce. They were so engaged in commerce, shipping, and everything that belongs to money-making, that they had no consideration for anything of a higher character, and they appear to have been the greatest monopolists the world has ever known. I think there is great question as to Cyprus being the first place in which the Phoenicians and Greeks came into contact. That, however, is too large a subject to go into now. With regard to the reference made to Tiryns and Mycenae, and the great Cyclopean buildings, I will give you the interpretation of the word “Cyclops,” and how it carries the origin of the Cyclopean art of building back to Babylonia. The meaning of the word "Cyclops" is derived from "Khuk," signifying king, and "Lohb," signifying flame-which, together, mean King of the Fire-worshippers, or Nimrod (see Hislop, p. 374, note). There are other remarks I should have liked to add, but I feel that I have already taken up enough of your time, and will detain you no longer.

Captain FRANCIS PETRIE (Hon. Sec.).—Among the letters received from those unable to attend is one from Mr. E. A. W. Budge, of the British Museum, who kindly places at our service another translation of the inscription, alluded to in page 10;-a cast of the original inscription of King Eshmânâzâr II. may be seen in the Phoenician room in the Museum :

"I ain torn away before my time, a son of a few days, an orphan, the son of a widow. I lie in this chest in the grave which I have built. I adjure every royal person and man not to open this bed, and not to seek treasures, for there are no treasures here. Every royal person and man who shall open the chamber of this couch, or who shall carry away the chest of my couch, or who shall build over this bed, may they have no bed among the shades, may they not be buried in a grave, may they have neither son nor posterity to succeed them, and may the holy gods deliver them into the hands of a mighty king to rule over them."