380 
SHAPOUR. 
horseback, the double diadem, and the very expression of his face, 
(which is that of the medals ascribed to Sapor by De Sacy,*) concur 
in the designation, and supply the figure of the conqueror. 
It may appear scarcely necessary to have added one line of explana- 
tion, as the internal evidence of the sculpture itself may seem to fix 
its history. But De Sacy|- has considered all the subjects at Nakshi 
Rustam, and consequently their duplicates at Shapour , as representing 
one subject only, the conquest of the Parthians by Artaxerxes : and 
on this theory he has regarded the suppliant as Artab an us, the last 
King of the Parthians, and the victor as Artaxerxes. It is due to 
such a man as De Sacy, to differ from him with hesitation, and to 
state the grounds of difference fully. The engravings of Chardin, 
Le Brun, and Niebuhr, which alone were before De Sacy, are so 
entirely unworthy of the originals, that the conclusion to which he 
was led was almost unavoidable; but if he, who has done so much 
with imperfect materials, had enjoyed the opportunity of examining the 
full and characteristic distinctions preserved in Air. AIorier's Sketches, 
he would have separated the subjects of the sculptures, into those 
wdiich commemorate the Parthian victories of Artaxerxes, and 
those which were similarly destined to immortalise the Roman triumphs 
of Sapor. 
The Plate, No. X. may be assumed then to represent Sapor in the 
act of receiving the submission of Valerian ; and that marked 
No. XIX. to display him in his triumphal splendour. The fragments. 
No. XII. contain some of his Roman spoils ; and the head to which 
* De Sacy indeed, in the suite to his u Memoire sur les Medailles des Sassanides,” 
p. 203-10, assigns all the medals on Plate VI. to Sapor II. and those on Plate VIII. to 
Sapor III. but the resemblance is so strong, (particularly in No. 3. of Plate VI.) between 
the figure on the coin, and that in the sculpture No. X. that the identity can hardly be 
doubted; and that the figure in the sculpture is Sapor 1. may be inferred from the in¬ 
scription at Nakshi Rustam , as well as from the general history. 
+ “ Si 1’on compare tous ces bas-reliefs, on sera porte a conjecture!’ qu’ils ne doivent 
“ avoir tous qu’un meme objet.” De Sacy, p. 66; see p. 69. 
