No. V. — Temple of Jupiter Serapis. 263 



guage should have reached the south of Italy, or more distant 

 coasts of Egypt in the golden days of Rome, seems the great- 

 est problem. A more probable derivation has been given by 

 Nixon, * on the authority of Vossius, who derives the Greek 

 word dovGuorjg, which seems actually to have been applied to 

 Serapis by the Arabs and Phoenicians f from two Hebrew 

 roots, signifying " Laetitia Terrae," — a characteristic appella- 

 tion of Bacchus, who is well known to have been one of the 

 divinities represented by this mysterious Egyptian hierarch. | 

 Perhaps the most incontestible proof of the nature of the tem- 

 ple arises from one of the statues found in it, the very exist- 

 ence of which is unaccountably passed over by almost every 

 writer on the subject, and by some is merely alluded to, appa- 

 rently in the same ignorance of its nature and authority in 

 which the reader is left, yet its testimony is indisputable, being 

 a perfect resemblance of this rare divinity with his attributes. 

 He is seated, having a long beard, with the Modius on his 

 head ; at his right hand a Cerberus, and with a spear in his 

 left, — characteristics perfectly coinciding with those of Serapis 

 preserved in the Vatican. § The image from Pozzuoli, which, 

 from the silence or confusion of authors, one might have fan- 

 cied to be altogether traditionary, was dug up in 1750, and is 

 actually preserved in the museum at Naples. 



But besides all this evidence, by far the most interesting fact 

 remains, yet perhaps is less generally known than any other 

 which has served to enlighten the history of the temple, — an 

 inscription which is not only decisive of the nature of the di- 

 vinity, but also will rectify the doubts already enumerated as 

 to the date of the building. Upon this authority, and no 

 other, the rumour (for it is little better) of the origin of the 

 temple in the sixth century of Rome, above noticed, is founded, 

 though it is improbable that either of the writers mentioned as 

 referring to it ever saw the original. The inscription relates 

 to a period somewhat posterior to that just mentioned, and 

 does not treat of the foundation of the temple, but of some re- 



* Philosophical Transactions at large, vol. 1. p. 166, &c. 



t Romanelli, Viaggio, &c. ii. 132. 



X Pitisci Lexicon Antiquitatum, Voce Serapis. 



§ Galerie Mythologique par Millin, vol. !• PI. Ixxxvii. 



