128 
this rite amongst the ethnic peoples was then proved, in the 
course of which argument a view respecting the origin of the 
Nazaritic rite amongst the Hebrews, adverse to the theory of 
Spencer on the same subject, was proposed. 
All these details were accompanied with references to 
standard authorities, and particularly to epigraphic records, 
as the undoubted exponents of the customs and sentiments of 
the Greeks. 
His next subject of consideration was the mutilated in- 
scription, with a view to its probable restoration. 
His first step was to prove that it must have been a 
Xaptorforov, that is, “an offering of gratitude for benefits which 
had been conferred.” His second was to define the meaning 
of ’Arrixéc, whether it should be received as a Proper name 
or an Ethnic: in the course of which discussion he took occa- 
sion to disprove the views of Smith, offering at the same time 
his reasons for adopting the first of these meanings, namely, 
that Arricdéce was the actual name of the donor, and that he 
was a Greek of unmixed descent. These several positions 
were established by references to inscriptions ; and by pursuing 
the same course, it was demonstrated, that Smith’s proposed 
identification of this Arrixd¢ with either of the individuals of the 
same name who flourished in the times of Trajan, Hadrian, 
and the Antonini, cannot hold good. 
The third subject of inquiry consisted in an endeavour to 
determine the Original of the anaglyph. In order to this, 
four possible objects of representation were proposed: a My- 
thical, in the person of the foundress of the Myesian city: an 
Allegorical, as impersonating the community: a Religious, in 
the person of a tutelary: an Historical, in the person of an 
individual, who was enabled by her position to influence the 
state’s weal. 
These were considered in the following order: the Tute- 
lary; the Foundress; the Impersonation of the community; 
the Historical personage. 
> 
